Walter, I am not sure I understand the need for your request. BIRD 146 contains this sentence in under 3.2.2.1: " ... The algorithmic model is expected to modify the waveform in | place by applying ..." and in section 3.2.2.2 BIRD 146 says this: " ... The 'wave' returned |* by the algorithmic model must have the same number of samples as the |* original 'wave' that was passed into the algorithmic model." I am not sure what the first two sentences in your suggestion below adds to this. To me they seem to say the same thing with more and/or different words. Your 3rd sentence is a new idea which we haven't talked about yet. We can certainly add this text to the specification but I am not sure if it is necessary. To me this sounds a little like saying that the model maker is responsible that the model generates valid data. Isn't this kind of obvious? Why would someone write a model that doesn't generate valid data? I know it might happen, but does a spec really have to say this? Thanks, Arpad =================================================================== From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Walter Katz Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:33 PM To: IBIS-ATM Subject: [ibis-macro] Suggested wording change/addition to BIRD146 All, I would like to suggest the following be added to BIRD146: By construction, the number of samples in 'wave' is the same when the AMI_GetWave function returns as it was when AMI_GetWave was called. It is the model developer's responsibility to make sure that the AMI_GetWave function does not overflow the bounds of the 'wave' array. It is also the model developer' responsibility that there is valid data that the EDA tool can analyze after the number of bits specified by Ignore_Bits. Walter Walter Katz wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx> Phone 303.449-2308 Mobile 720.333-1107