[ibis-macro] FW: BIRD147.1 Concern
- From: "Bob Ross" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'IBIS-ATM'" <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 14:19:31 -0800
ATM Group:
This did not go out on the ATM reflector last week
(I was not subscribed.)
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Ross [mailto:bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 5:44 PM
To: 'IBIS-ATM'
Cc: Ambrish Varma
Subject: BIRD147.1 Concern
ATM Group
From the last meeting, which I did not attend, I was
asked to express my concerns about BIRD147.1.
My main concern is that the back-channel protocol
allows tap parameters with one or two values for
the Statistical Flow whereas the AMI syntax allows only
one value. I do not know if anyone else is bothered by
this inconsistency.
Ambrish and I discussed this issue in the past, and
I even had an alternative proposal involving a new
BCI file Reserved_Parameter (Tap_Range_Name...)
to define a Protocol_Specific parameter name to be
used for passing the min and max tap coefficient values
for each tap coefficient using Format Table. (This was
similar to the earlier SiSoft proposal.)
We did not add this to BIRD147.1 at that time because
Ambrish argued that it made the protocol unnecessarily
complicated and perhaps incomplete.
However, the notion that any new, standardized BCI
file protocol can create new rules (that conflict with IBIS-AMI
parameter rules) as long as the Rx and Tx understand each
other still bothers me.
Bob
--
Bob Ross
Teraspeed Labs
http://www.teraspeedlabs.com
bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Direct: 503-246-8048
Office: 971-279-5325
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
IBIS Macro reflector: //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
To unsubscribe send an email:
To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: unsubscribe
Other related posts:
