By the way, there is another grammatical error in the BIRD:
"The forces all AMI simulations to be centered"
but this is in the "DEFINITION OF THE ISSUE" section which will
not be put into the spec, so we don't really need to fix it...
Thanks,
Arpad
================================================
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] ;
On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 6:45 PM
To: IBIS-ATM (ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Technical questions on BIRD197.2
Mike,
#1) God catch. Should be fixed to 7.1 or x.x
#2) The BIRD says
"If the impulse response was generated by differentiating the step response,
then..."
This doesn't indicate to me "that both step responses and impulse responses are
now legal waveform types",
it just says that if the IR was based on a step response then, this and that...
#3) I agree, this is weird, but so is the "placeholder" for Out types, when the
.ami file
has to contain a dummy value that will be replaced by the real thing coming
from the
DLL... At some time in the future we might want to clean these weird things
up...
Thanks,
Arpad
=================================================================
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mirmak, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 12:53 PM
To: IBIS-ATM (ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>)
<ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [ibis-macro] Technical questions on BIRD197.2
Sorry not to have raised these earlier, but the recent posting of BIRD197.2 to
the IBIS reflector in advance of the Open Forum vote has "inspired" some
questions...
1) The BIRD explicitly states under "Required" that the parameter
DC_Offset is "illegal before AMI_Version 7.0". Should this read "7.1", or even
be left as "X.X" until the BIRD is formally integrated into a specific IBIS
document?
2) The BIRD definition and part of the BIRD change text mention step
responses. Are there any other adjustments to IBIS language needed to make
explicit that both step responses and impulse responses are now legal waveform
types as part of AMI simulation? The concern is that the model and tool may
not have unambiguous information about the waveform to generate/expect.
3) DC_Offset is somewhat "weird" in that we are declaring an input
parameter as part of a .ami file but which is essentially only a placeholder.
In other words, we have other "inputs" to a DLL which are defined in the
specification but are not formally part of the .ami file structure (the
waveform itself is one such instance, as is bit_time). Anything part of the
.ami file is actually determined by the model maker. Shouldn't DC_Offset be
part of the AMI function calls, similar to bit_time?
Thanks in advance...
- MM
