Report from SeedLink v4 proposal review team
Chad Trabant
The SeedLink protocol version 4 review team has finished their work and
submitted their report, which I copy below.
Please cast your vote for or against their recommendation to have the
proposal proceed to the evaluation stage by Wednesday, 18 January.
If the WG votes to proceed, the evaluation review team will be instantiated
shortly thereafter. Representatives from equipment manufacturers will be
invited and encouraged to participate in this important phase. A short
list of volunteers has already offered to serve on this review team, if you
would like to be added please let me know.
Thank you to Mark Chadwick*,* Philip Crotwell, and Roman Racine for the
time spent considering the proposal's suitability for adoption by the FDSN.
regards,
Chad Trabant
---------------------
The SeedLink version 4 Proposal Review team has been asked to recommend
whether the proposal should be advanced to the evaluation stage based on
the two questions:
1) should the FDSN pursue the development or adoption of a streaming data
protocol specification?
2) should the submitted SeedLink version 4 protocol specification proceed
to an evaluation stage to address that functionality?
The recommendation of the proposal review team to both questions is "yes"
and that the proposal should be advanced.
It was felt that the FDSN was the appropriate body to maintain a streaming
data protocol specification, but that it should not necessarily be a single
exclusive protocol. Seedlink version 4 being adopted as an FDSN standard
should in no way preclude another streaming protocol from becoming an FDSN
standard, especially in narrow, specialised use cases.
SeedLink3 has almost become a de facto standard for near real-time
streaming of miniSEED data. This includes exchange between datacenters as
well as, importantly, the direct collection of streaming data from a number
of field instruments which have SeedLink capabilities.
The SeedLink4 proposal attempts to address some of the shortcomings of the
previous version and to add enhancements, such as to make it more
compatible with future updates to the miniSEED format. The proposal review
team agrees that it makes a strong candidate to be an FDSN standard and
that it should be advanced to the evaluation stage. This will, amongst
other things, provide sound governance, stability, and a framework for any
future enhancements, or security updates, as appropriate or as needed.
Mark Chadwick
Philip Crotwell
Roman Racine
-----------------------
Jerry Carter
evaluation stage.
Jerry Carter,
Director, IRIS Data Services
> ----------------------
> FDSN Working Group III
> Topic home: http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/topic/fdsn-wg3-products/ |
> Unsubscribe: fdsn-wg3-produ...@lists.fdsn.org
>
> Sent from the FDSN Message Center (http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/)
> Update subscription preferences at http://www.fdsn.org/account/profile/
>
Dan Auerbach
Dan Auerbach
Director, Project IDA Data Collection Center
Institute of Geophysics & Planetary Physics, Rm 2119
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego
La Jolla, CA 92093-0225
858-822-0797
> On Dec 23, 2022, at 10:38, Jerry Carter (via FDSN) <fdsn-wg3-pro...@lists.fdsn.org> wrote:
>
> IRIS votes "yes" to have the SeedLink version 4 proposal proceed to the evaluation stage.
>
> Jerry Carter,
> Director, IRIS Data Services
>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 10:22 AM Chad Trabant (via FDSN) <fdsn-wg3-pro...@lists.fdsn.org <mailto:fdsn-wg3-pro...@lists.fdsn.org>> wrote:
> Dear WG3 members,
>
> The SeedLink protocol version 4 review team has finished their work and submitted their report, which I copy below.
>
> Please cast your vote for or against their recommendation to have the proposal proceed to the evaluation stage by Wednesday, 18 January.
>
> If the WG votes to proceed, the evaluation review team will be instantiated shortly thereafter. Representatives from equipment manufacturers will be invited and encouraged to participate in this important phase. A short list of volunteers has already offered to serve on this review team, if you would like to be added please let me know.
>
> Thank you to Mark Chadwick, Philip Crotwell, and Roman Racine for the time spent considering the proposal's suitability for adoption by the FDSN.
>
> regards,
> Chad Trabant
>
>
> ---------------------
>
> The SeedLink version 4 Proposal Review team has been asked to recommend whether the proposal should be advanced to the evaluation stage based on the two questions:
>
>
>
> 1) should the FDSN pursue the development or adoption of a streaming data protocol specification?
>
> 2) should the submitted SeedLink version 4 protocol specification proceed to an evaluation stage to address that functionality?
>
>
>
> The recommendation of the proposal review team to both questions is "yes" and that the proposal should be advanced.
>
>
>
> It was felt that the FDSN was the appropriate body to maintain a streaming data protocol specification, but that it should not necessarily be a single exclusive protocol. Seedlink version 4 being adopted as an FDSN standard should in no way preclude another streaming protocol from becoming an FDSN standard, especially in narrow, specialised use cases.
>
>
>
> SeedLink3 has almost become a de facto standard for near real-time streaming of miniSEED data. This includes exchange between datacenters as well as, importantly, the direct collection of streaming data from a number of field instruments which have SeedLink capabilities.
>
>
>
> The SeedLink4 proposal attempts to address some of the shortcomings of the previous version and to add enhancements, such as to make it more compatible with future updates to the miniSEED format. The proposal review team agrees that it makes a strong candidate to be an FDSN standard and that it should be advanced to the evaluation stage. This will, amongst other things, provide sound governance, stability, and a framework for any future enhancements, or security updates, as appropriate or as needed.
>
>
>
> Mark Chadwick
>
> Philip Crotwell
>
> Roman Racine
>
> -----------------------
>
>
> ----------------------
> FDSN Working Group III
> Topic home: http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/topic/fdsn-wg3-products/ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/topic/fdsn-wg3-products/__;!!Mih3wA!Bz4OxhfXh3e68O6LB0pBknJaXxMkNSZav1Ob2JOD5wHK7B6pLJ2y0wJ6P-bTHhLjLeeTi3Zu2bhphFen_6MEwICRs6d0rZ4m$> | Unsubscribe: fdsn-wg3-produ...@lists.fdsn.org <mailto:fdsn-wg3-produ...@lists.fdsn.org>
>
> Sent from the FDSN Message Center (http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/__;!!Mih3wA!Bz4OxhfXh3e68O6LB0pBknJaXxMkNSZav1Ob2JOD5wHK7B6pLJ2y0wJ6P-bTHhLjLeeTi3Zu2bhphFen_6MEwICRs3xd3Ebw$>)
> Update subscription preferences at http://www.fdsn.org/account/profile/ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.fdsn.org/account/profile/__;!!Mih3wA!Bz4OxhfXh3e68O6LB0pBknJaXxMkNSZav1Ob2JOD5wHK7B6pLJ2y0wJ6P-bTHhLjLeeTi3Zu2bhphFen_6MEwICRs7RtLcJq$>
>
> ----------------------
> FDSN Working Group III
> Topic home: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/topic/fdsn-wg3-products/__;!!Mih3wA!Bz4OxhfXh3e68O6LB0pBknJaXxMkNSZav1Ob2JOD5wHK7B6pLJ2y0wJ6P-bTHhLjLeeTi3Zu2bhphFen_6MEwICRs6d0rZ4m$ | Unsubscribe: fdsn-wg3-produ...@lists.fdsn.org
>
> Sent from the FDSN Message Center (https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/__;!!Mih3wA!Bz4OxhfXh3e68O6LB0pBknJaXxMkNSZav1Ob2JOD5wHK7B6pLJ2y0wJ6P-bTHhLjLeeTi3Zu2bhphFen_6MEwICRs3xd3Ebw$ )
> Update subscription preferences at https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.fdsn.org/account/profile/__;!!Mih3wA!Bz4OxhfXh3e68O6LB0pBknJaXxMkNSZav1Ob2JOD5wHK7B6pLJ2y0wJ6P-bTHhLjLeeTi3Zu2bhphFen_6MEwICRs7RtLcJq$
Philip Crotwell
Philip Crotwell
> ----------------------
> FDSN Working Group III
> Topic home: http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/topic/fdsn-wg3-products/ |
> Unsubscribe: fdsn-wg3-produ...@lists.fdsn.org
>
> Sent from the FDSN Message Center (http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/)
Wen-Tzong Liang
Happy Holidays
Wen-Tzong Liang
IESDMC
Institute of Earth Sciences, Academia Sinica
-----Original message-----
From:Chad Trabant (via FDSN)<fdsn-wg3-pro...@lists.fdsn.org>
To:FDSN Working Group III<fdsn-wg3...@lists.fdsn.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2022 02:22:00
Subject: [fdsn-wg3-products] Report from SeedLink v4 proposal review team
Dear WG3 members,
The SeedLink protocol version 4 review team has finished their work and submitted their report, which I copy below.
Please cast your vote for or against their recommendation to have the proposal proceed to the evaluation stage by Wednesday, 18 January.
If the WG votes to proceed, the evaluation review team will be instantiated shortly thereafter. Representatives from equipment manufacturers will be invited and encouraged to participate in this important phase. A short list of volunteers has already offered to serve on this review team, if you would like to be added please let me know.
Thank you to Mark Chadwick, Philip Crotwell, and Roman Racine for the time spent considering the proposal's suitability for adoption by the FDSN.
TIm Ahern
> On Dec 23, 2022, at 10:22 AM, Chad Trabant (via FDSN) <fdsn-wg3-pro...@lists.fdsn.org> wrote:
>
> Dear WG3 members,
>
> The SeedLink protocol version 4 review team has finished their work and submitted their report, which I copy below.
>
> Please cast your vote for or against their recommendation to have the proposal proceed to the evaluation stage by Wednesday, 18 January.
>
> If the WG votes to proceed, the evaluation review team will be instantiated shortly thereafter. Representatives from equipment manufacturers will be invited and encouraged to participate in this important phase. A short list of volunteers has already offered to serve on this review team, if you would like to be added please let me know.
>
> Thank you to Mark Chadwick, Philip Crotwell, and Roman Racine for the time spent considering the proposal's suitability for adoption by the FDSN.
>
> regards,
> Chad Trabant
>
>
> ---------------------
>
> The SeedLink version 4 Proposal Review team has been asked to recommend whether the proposal should be advanced to the evaluation stage based on the two questions:
>
>
>
> 1) should the FDSN pursue the development or adoption of a streaming data protocol specification?
>
> 2) should the submitted SeedLink version 4 protocol specification proceed to an evaluation stage to address that functionality?
>
>
>
> The recommendation of the proposal review team to both questions is "yes" and that the proposal should be advanced.
>
>
>
> It was felt that the FDSN was the appropriate body to maintain a streaming data protocol specification, but that it should not necessarily be a single exclusive protocol. Seedlink version 4 being adopted as an FDSN standard should in no way preclude another streaming protocol from becoming an FDSN standard, especially in narrow, specialised use cases.
>
>
>
> SeedLink3 has almost become a de facto standard for near real-time streaming of miniSEED data. This includes exchange between datacenters as well as, importantly, the direct collection of streaming data from a number of field instruments which have SeedLink capabilities.
>
>
>
> The SeedLink4 proposal attempts to address some of the shortcomings of the previous version and to add enhancements, such as to make it more compatible with future updates to the miniSEED format. The proposal review team agrees that it makes a strong candidate to be an FDSN standard and that it should be advanced to the evaluation stage. This will, amongst other things, provide sound governance, stability, and a framework for any future enhancements, or security updates, as appropriate or as needed.
>
>
>
> Mark Chadwick
>
> Philip Crotwell
>
> Roman Racine
>
> -----------------------
>
>
Angelo Strollo
We take this opportunity to thank review team for the time spent on this and also to wish all WG3 members a wonderful new year!
Thanks and regards,
Angelo Strollo
> On 23. Dec 2022, at 19:22, Chad Trabant (via FDSN) <fdsn-wg3-pro...@lists.fdsn.org> wrote:
>
> Dear WG3 members,
>
> The SeedLink protocol version 4 review team has finished their work and submitted their report, which I copy below.
>
> Please cast your vote for or against their recommendation to have the proposal proceed to the evaluation stage by Wednesday, 18 January.
>
> If the WG votes to proceed, the evaluation review team will be instantiated shortly thereafter. Representatives from equipment manufacturers will be invited and encouraged to participate in this important phase. A short list of volunteers has already offered to serve on this review team, if you would like to be added please let me know.
>
> Thank you to Mark Chadwick, Philip Crotwell, and Roman Racine for the time spent considering the proposal's suitability for adoption by the FDSN.
>
> regards,
> Chad Trabant
>
> ---------------------
> The SeedLink version 4 Proposal Review team has been asked to recommend whether the proposal should be advanced to the evaluation stage based on the two questions:
>
> 1) should the FDSN pursue the development or adoption of a streaming data protocol specification?
> 2) should the submitted SeedLink version 4 protocol specification proceed to an evaluation stage to address that functionality?
> The recommendation of the proposal review team to both questions is "yes" and that the proposal should be advanced.
> It was felt that the FDSN was the appropriate body to maintain a streaming data protocol specification, but that it should not necessarily be a single exclusive protocol. Seedlink version 4 being adopted as an FDSN standard should in no way preclude another streaming protocol from becoming an FDSN standard, especially in narrow, specialised use cases.
> SeedLink3 has almost become a de facto standard for near real-time streaming of miniSEED data. This includes exchange between datacenters as well as, importantly, the direct collection of streaming data from a number of field instruments which have SeedLink capabilities.
> The SeedLink4 proposal attempts to address some of the shortcomings of the previous version and to add enhancements, such as to make it more compatible with future updates to the miniSEED format. The proposal review team agrees that it makes a strong candidate to be an FDSN standard and that it should be advanced to the evaluation stage. This will, amongst other things, provide sound governance, stability, and a framework for any future enhancements, or security updates, as appropriate or as needed.
> Mark Chadwick
> Philip Crotwell
> Roman Racine
> -----------------------
>
> ----------------------
> FDSN Working Group III
> Topic home: http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/topic/fdsn-wg3-products/ | Unsubscribe: fdsn-wg3-produ...@lists.fdsn.org
>
> Sent from the FDSN Message Center (http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/)
> Update subscription preferences at http://www.fdsn.org/account/profile/
--
Dr. ANGELO STROLLO
Department 2 Geophysics
Section 2.4 Seismology - GEOFON
Tel.: +49 (0)331/2881285
Mob.: +49 (0)172/8590874
Email: str...@gfz-potsdam.de
_______________________________________
Helmholtz Centre Potsdam
GFZ German Research Centre For Geosciences
Public Law Foundation State of Brandenburg
Albert-Einstein-Straße 42-46
House A46 Room 113
14473 Potsdam
Angelo Strollo
We take this opportunity to thank the review team for the time spent on this and also to wish all WG3 members a wonderful new year!
Christos Evangelidis
Christos Evangelidis
> ----------------------
> FDSN Working Group III
> Topic home: http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/topic/fdsn-wg3-products/ |
> Unsubscribe: fdsn-wg3-produ...@lists.fdsn.org
>
> Sent from the FDSN Message Center (http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/)
> Update subscription preferences at http://www.fdsn.org/account/profile/
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Christos Evangelidis
Senior Researcher - Seismologist
Hellenic Broadband Seismic Network
INSTITUTE OF GEODYNAMICS
NATIONAL OBSERVATORY OF ATHENS
Tel:+30 210 3490043
Email: ce...@noa.gr
Www: http://members.noa.gr/cevan/en/
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seiji Tsuboi
2022年12月24日(土) 3:22 Chad Trabant (via FDSN) <
fdsn-wg3-pro...@lists.fdsn.org>:
Martin Vallee
Thanks and regards,
Martin Vallée
Didem Cambaz
Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute (KOERI) votes “yes” to have the SeedLink version 4 proposal proceed to the evaluation stage.
Thanks and regards,
Didem Cambaz
From: fdsn-wg3-pro...@lists.fdsn.org [mailto:fdsn-wg3-pro...@lists.fdsn.org]
Sent: 23 Aralık 2022 Cuma 21:22
To: FDSN Working Group III <fdsn-wg3...@lists.fdsn.org>
Subject: [fdsn-wg3-products] Report from SeedLink v4 proposal review team
Dear WG3 members,
The SeedLink protocol version 4 review team has finished their work and submitted their report, which I copy below.
Please cast your vote for or against their recommendation to have the proposal proceed to the evaluation stage by Wednesday, 18 January.
If the WG votes to proceed, the evaluation review team will be instantiated shortly thereafter. Representatives from equipment manufacturers will be invited and encouraged to participate in this important phase. A short list of volunteers has already offered to serve on this review team, if you would like to be added please let me know.
Thank you to Mark Chadwick, Philip Crotwell, and Roman Racine for the time spent considering the proposal's suitability for adoption by the FDSN.
Claudio Satriano
Happy new year,
Claudio Satriano
> Il giorno 23 dic 2022, alle ore 19:22, Chad Trabant (via FDSN) <fdsn-wg3-pro...@lists.fdsn.org> ha scritto:
>
> Dear WG3 members,
>
> The SeedLink protocol version 4 review team has finished their work and submitted their report, which I copy below.
>
> Please cast your vote for or against their recommendation to have the proposal proceed to the evaluation stage by Wednesday, 18 January.
>
> If the WG votes to proceed, the evaluation review team will be instantiated shortly thereafter. Representatives from equipment manufacturers will be invited and encouraged to participate in this important phase. A short list of volunteers has already offered to serve on this review team, if you would like to be added please let me know.
>
> Thank you to Mark Chadwick, Philip Crotwell, and Roman Racine for the time spent considering the proposal's suitability for adoption by the FDSN.
>
> regards,
> Chad Trabant
>
>
> ---------------------
>
> The SeedLink version 4 Proposal Review team has been asked to recommend whether the proposal should be advanced to the evaluation stage based on the two questions:
>
>
>
> 1) should the FDSN pursue the development or adoption of a streaming data protocol specification?
>
> 2) should the submitted SeedLink version 4 protocol specification proceed to an evaluation stage to address that functionality?
>
>
>
> The recommendation of the proposal review team to both questions is "yes" and that the proposal should be advanced.
>
>
>
> It was felt that the FDSN was the appropriate body to maintain a streaming data protocol specification, but that it should not necessarily be a single exclusive protocol. Seedlink version 4 being adopted as an FDSN standard should in no way preclude another streaming protocol from becoming an FDSN standard, especially in narrow, specialised use cases.
>
>
>
> SeedLink3 has almost become a de facto standard for near real-time streaming of miniSEED data. This includes exchange between datacenters as well as, importantly, the direct collection of streaming data from a number of field instruments which have SeedLink capabilities.
>
>
>
> The SeedLink4 proposal attempts to address some of the shortcomings of the previous version and to add enhancements, such as to make it more compatible with future updates to the miniSEED format. The proposal review team agrees that it makes a strong candidate to be an FDSN standard and that it should be advanced to the evaluation stage. This will, amongst other things, provide sound governance, stability, and a framework for any future enhancements, or security updates, as appropriate or as needed.
>
>
>
> Mark Chadwick
>
> Philip Crotwell
>
> Roman Racine
>
> -----------------------
>
>
> ----------------------
> FDSN Working Group III
> Topic home: http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/topic/fdsn-wg3-products/ | Unsubscribe: fdsn-wg3-produ...@lists.fdsn.org
>
> Sent from the FDSN Message Center (http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/)
> Update subscription preferences at http://www.fdsn.org/account/profile/
---------------------------------------------------
Claudio Satriano
satr...@ipgp.fr <mailto:satr...@ipgp.fr>
http://www.ipgp.fr/~satriano
Equipe de Sismologie
Centre de Données
Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris
1 rue Jussieu, 75238 - Paris Cedex 05
Office : + 33 1 83 95 77 26
Fax : + 33 1 71 93 77 16
Tugbay KILIC
Regards
Tugbay KILIC
From: fdsn-wg3-pro...@lists.fdsn.org <fdsn-wg3-pro...@lists.fdsn.org>
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2022 9:22 PM
To: FDSN Working Group III <fdsn-wg3...@lists.fdsn.org>
Subject: [fdsn-wg3-products] Report from SeedLink v4 proposal review team
Dear WG3 members,
The SeedLink protocol version 4 review team has finished their work and submitted their report, which I copy below.
Please cast your vote for or against their recommendation to have the proposal proceed to the evaluation stage by Wednesday, 18 January.
If the WG votes to proceed, the evaluation review team will be instantiated shortly thereafter. Representatives from equipment manufacturers will be invited and encouraged to participate in this important phase. A short list of volunteers has already offered to serve on this review team, if you would like to be added please let me know.
Thank you to Mark Chadwick, Philip Crotwell, and Roman Racine for the time spent considering the proposal's suitability for adoption by the FDSN.
regards,
Chad Trabant
---------------------
The SeedLink version 4 Proposal Review team has been asked to recommend whether the proposal should be advanced to the evaluation stage based on the two questions:
1) should the FDSN pursue the development or adoption of a streaming data protocol specification?
2) should the submitted SeedLink version 4 protocol specification proceed to an evaluation stage to address that functionality?
The recommendation of the proposal review team to both questions is "yes" and that the proposal should be advanced.
It was felt that the FDSN was the appropriate body to maintain a streaming data protocol specification, but that it should not necessarily be a single exclusive protocol. Seedlink version 4 being adopted as an FDSN standard should in no way preclude another streaming protocol from becoming an FDSN standard, especially in narrow, specialised use cases.
SeedLink3 has almost become a de facto standard for near real-time streaming of miniSEED data. This includes exchange between datacenters as well as, importantly, the direct collection of streaming data from a number of field instruments which have SeedLink capabilities.
The SeedLink4 proposal attempts to address some of the shortcomings of the previous version and to add enhancements, such as to make it more compatible with future updates to the miniSEED format. The proposal review team agrees that it makes a strong candidate to be an FDSN standard and that it should be advanced to the evaluation stage. This will, amongst other things, provide sound governance, stability, and a framework for any future enhancements, or security updates, as appropriate or as needed.
Mark Chadwick
Philip Crotwell
Roman Racine
-----------------------
AFAD E-Posta Feragatnamesi (Disclaimer)
Mohsen Ashtiany
International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES) voted Yes.
Best Wishes with Being Safe and Healthy
Mohsen Ashtiany
FaceTime: +1-5408186625,
WhatsApp: +98-9127792554,
Skype: Mohsen.Ashtiany
> On Jan 6, 2023, at 9:57 AM, Tugbay KILIC (via FDSN) <fdsn-wg3-pro...@lists.fdsn.org> wrote:
>
Johannes Schweitzer
NORSAR is also voting ‘yes’,
Cheers,
Johannes
Dr. Johannes Schweitzer
Principal Research Geophysicist
Assoc. Professor (CEED, University of Oslo)
________________________________
[norsar]<http://www.norsar.no/>
NORSAR
Gunnar Randers vei 15
PO Box 53, N-2007 Kjeller
Norway
Email: Johannes....@norsar.no
Mobile: +47 41614946
Phone: +47 63 80 59 00
From: fdsn-wg3-pro...@lists.fdsn.org <fdsn-wg3-pro...@lists.fdsn.org>
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2022 7:22 PM
To: FDSN Working Group III <fdsn-wg3...@lists.fdsn.org>
Subject: [fdsn-wg3-products] Report from SeedLink v4 proposal review team
Dear WG3 members,
The SeedLink protocol version 4 review team has finished their work and submitted their report, which I copy below.
Please cast your vote for or against their recommendation to have the proposal proceed to the evaluation stage by Wednesday, 18 January.
If the WG votes to proceed, the evaluation review team will be instantiated shortly thereafter. Representatives from equipment manufacturers will be invited and encouraged to participate in this important phase. A short list of volunteers has already offered to serve on this review team, if you would like to be added please let me know.
Thank you to Mark Chadwick, Philip Crotwell, and Roman Racine for the time spent considering the proposal's suitability for adoption by the FDSN.
Michael Roth
The Swedish National Seismic Network votes YES for the proposal.
Cheers,
Michael
Michael Roth
Seismologist
Swedish National Seismic Network (SNSN)
Department of Earth Sciences - Geophysics
Uppsala University
Villavägen 16, SE-75236 Uppsala
Tel: +46 18 4712378
Cell:+46 73 3916754
Alexandros Savvaidis
TexNet also votes yes.
Thanks, and Best Regards,
Alexandros
Alexandros Savvaidis, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist
Manager and PI of Texas Seismological Network and Seismology Research (TexNet)
Cell: (737) 202-8750
From: fdsn-wg3-pro...@lists.fdsn.org <fdsn-wg3-pro...@lists.fdsn.org>
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2022 12:22 PM
To: FDSN Working Group III <fdsn-wg3...@lists.fdsn.org>
Subject: [fdsn-wg3-products] Report from SeedLink v4 proposal review team
Dear WG3 members,
The SeedLink protocol version 4 review team has finished their work and submitted their report, which I copy below.
Please cast your vote for or against their recommendation to have the proposal proceed to the evaluation stage by Wednesday, 18 January.
If the WG votes to proceed, the evaluation review team will be instantiated shortly thereafter. Representatives from equipment manufacturers will be invited and encouraged to participate in this important phase. A short list of volunteers has already offered to serve on this review team, if you would like to be added please let me know.
Thank you to Mark Chadwick, Philip Crotwell, and Roman Racine for the time spent considering the proposal's suitability for adoption by the FDSN.
Peter Voss
Med venlig hilsen / Inussiarnersumik inuulluaqqusillunga / Yours sincerely
Peter H. Voss
Seismologist, Ph.D.
Department of Geophysics
phone: +45 40 21 62 88
mail: p...@geus.dk
web: www.geus.dk<http://www.geus.dk/>
Geological Survey of
Denmark and Greenland (GEUS)
Øster Voldgade 10
1350 Copenhagen K
Denmark
[cid:image0...@01D92403.D3791550]
Fra: fdsn-wg3-pro...@lists.fdsn.org <fdsn-wg3-pro...@lists.fdsn.org>
Sendt: 23. december 2022 19:22
Til: FDSN Working Group III <fdsn-wg3...@lists.fdsn.org>
Emne: [fdsn-wg3-products] Report from SeedLink v4 proposal review team
Dear WG3 members,
The SeedLink protocol version 4 review team has finished their work and submitted their report, which I copy below.
Please cast your vote for or against their recommendation to have the proposal proceed to the evaluation stage by Wednesday, 18 January.
If the WG votes to proceed, the evaluation review team will be instantiated shortly thereafter. Representatives from equipment manufacturers will be invited and encouraged to participate in this important phase. A short list of volunteers has already offered to serve on this review team, if you would like to be added please let me know.
Thank you to Mark Chadwick, Philip Crotwell, and Roman Racine for the time spent considering the proposal's suitability for adoption by the FDSN.
John Clinton
SED @ ETHZ votes for the recommendation.
John
Horn Nikolaus
The Austrian Earthquake Service at the Bundesanstalt für Geologie, Geophysik, Klimatologie und Meteorologie, formerly know as ZAMG votes YES for the proposal.
On this occasion I have the pleasure to announce that ZAMG - the venerable "Zentralanstalt für Meteorogie und Geodynamik" has been
merged with the Geological Survey of Austria under the name of GeoSphere Austria - Bundesanstalt für Geologie, Geophysik, Klimatologie und Meteorologie
This should have no practical implications.
Greetings,
Niko
[1672657594831]<https://www.geosphere.at>
Nikolaus Horn
Erdbebendienst / Earthquake Service
Hohe Warte 38, 1190 Wien
T. +43 1 360 26 2521 | M. +43 664 76 50 309
Nikola...@geosphere.at<mailto:Nikola...@geosphere.at> | www.geosphere.at<http://www.geosphere.at>
Mark Chadwick
Mark Chadwick
From: fdsn-wg3-pro...@lists.fdsn.org <fdsn-wg3-pro...@lists.fdsn.org>
Sent: Saturday, 24 December 2022 07:22
To: FDSN Working Group III <fdsn-wg3...@lists.fdsn.org>
Subject: [fdsn-wg3-products] Report from SeedLink v4 proposal review team
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe:
Dear WG3 members,
The SeedLink protocol version 4 review team has finished their work and submitted their report, which I copy below.
Please cast your vote for or against their recommendation to have the proposal proceed to the evaluation stage by Wednesday, 18 January.
If the WG votes to proceed, the evaluation review team will be instantiated shortly thereafter. Representatives from equipment manufacturers will be invited and encouraged to participate in this important phase. A short list of volunteers has already offered to serve on this review team, if you would like to be added please let me know.
Thank you to Mark Chadwick, Philip Crotwell, and Roman Racine for the time spent considering the proposal's suitability for adoption by the FDSN.
regards,
Chad Trabant
---------------------
The SeedLink version 4 Proposal Review team has been asked to recommend whether the proposal should be advanced to the evaluation stage based on the two questions:
1) should the FDSN pursue the development or adoption of a streaming data protocol specification?
2) should the submitted SeedLink version 4 protocol specification proceed to an evaluation stage to address that functionality?
The recommendation of the proposal review team to both questions is "yes" and that the proposal should be advanced.
It was felt that the FDSN was the appropriate body to maintain a streaming data protocol specification, but that it should not necessarily be a single exclusive protocol. Seedlink version 4 being adopted as an FDSN standard should in no way preclude another streaming protocol from becoming an FDSN standard, especially in narrow, specialised use cases.
SeedLink3 has almost become a de facto standard for near real-time streaming of miniSEED data. This includes exchange between datacenters as well as, importantly, the direct collection of streaming data from a number of field instruments which have SeedLink capabilities.
The SeedLink4 proposal attempts to address some of the shortcomings of the previous version and to add enhancements, such as to make it more compatible with future updates to the miniSEED format. The proposal review team agrees that it makes a strong candidate to be an FDSN standard and that it should be advanced to the evaluation stage. This will, amongst other things, provide sound governance, stability, and a framework for any future enhancements, or security updates, as appropriate or as needed.
Mark Chadwick
Philip Crotwell
Roman Racine
-----------------------
Notice: This email and any attachments are confidential and may not be used, published or redistributed without the prior written consent of the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited (GNS Science). If received in error please destroy and immediately notify GNS Science. Do not copy or disclose the contents.
Peter Danecek
MedNet/INGV votes YES to proceed to the evaluation stage with the SeedLink version 4 proposal.
Best regards!
Peter Danecek
> On 23 Dec 2022, at 19:22, Chad Trabant (via FDSN) <fdsn-wg3-pro...@lists.fdsn.org> wrote:
>
>
> ----------------------
> FDSN Working Group III
> Topic home: https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/topic/fdsn-wg3-products/&source=gmail-imap&ust=1672424563000000&usg=AOvVaw0lzq0TXfcXnfJhNEquB96S | Unsubscribe: fdsn-wg3-produ...@lists.fdsn.org
>
> Sent from the FDSN Message Center (https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/&source=gmail-imap&ust=1672424563000000&usg=AOvVaw0BYtNjfA-W5uP4bhZu7ZpR)
> Update subscription preferences at https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.fdsn.org/account/profile/&source=gmail-imap&ust=1672424563000000&usg=AOvVaw0xxjSMaucm8sKHW6fHLXSK
Ackerley, Nicholas
Nick Ackerley
(he, him, il, lui)
Seismic Analyst, Canadian Hazard Information Service
Natural Resources Canada / Government of Canada
Analyste Sismique, Service canadien d'information sur les risques
Ressources naturelles Canada / Gouvernement du Canada
nicholas...@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca<mailto:nicholas...@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca> / 343-551-3972
http://www.earthquakescanada.ca/
From: fdsn-wg3-pro...@lists.fdsn.org <fdsn-wg3-pro...@lists.fdsn.org>
Sent: December 23, 2022 13:22
To: FDSN Working Group III <fdsn-wg3...@lists.fdsn.org>
Subject: [fdsn-wg3-products] Report from SeedLink v4 proposal review team
***Caution - email originated from outside of NRCan. Read the warning below / Attention- Ce courriel provient de l'extérieur des RNCan. Voir la mise en garde ci-dessous***
Dear WG3 members,
The SeedLink protocol version 4 review team has finished their work and submitted their report, which I copy below.
Please cast your vote for or against their recommendation to have the proposal proceed to the evaluation stage by Wednesday, 18 January.
If the WG votes to proceed, the evaluation review team will be instantiated shortly thereafter. Representatives from equipment manufacturers will be invited and encouraged to participate in this important phase. A short list of volunteers has already offered to serve on this review team, if you would like to be added please let me know.
Thank you to Mark Chadwick, Philip Crotwell, and Roman Racine for the time spent considering the proposal's suitability for adoption by the FDSN.
regards,
Chad Trabant
---------------------
The SeedLink version 4 Proposal Review team has been asked to recommend whether the proposal should be advanced to the evaluation stage based on the two questions:
1) should the FDSN pursue the development or adoption of a streaming data protocol specification?
2) should the submitted SeedLink version 4 protocol specification proceed to an evaluation stage to address that functionality?
The recommendation of the proposal review team to both questions is "yes" and that the proposal should be advanced.
It was felt that the FDSN was the appropriate body to maintain a streaming data protocol specification, but that it should not necessarily be a single exclusive protocol. Seedlink version 4 being adopted as an FDSN standard should in no way preclude another streaming protocol from becoming an FDSN standard, especially in narrow, specialised use cases.
SeedLink3 has almost become a de facto standard for near real-time streaming of miniSEED data. This includes exchange between datacenters as well as, importantly, the direct collection of streaming data from a number of field instruments which have SeedLink capabilities.
The SeedLink4 proposal attempts to address some of the shortcomings of the previous version and to add enhancements, such as to make it more compatible with future updates to the miniSEED format. The proposal review team agrees that it makes a strong candidate to be an FDSN standard and that it should be advanced to the evaluation stage. This will, amongst other things, provide sound governance, stability, and a framework for any future enhancements, or security updates, as appropriate or as needed.
Mark Chadwick
Philip Crotwell
Roman Racine
-----------------------
This email originated from outside of NRCan. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and believe the content is safe. For more information, please visit How to Identify Phishing<https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fintranet.nrcan.gc.ca%2Fservices-policies%2Fdont-get-scammed-cyber-security-101&data=05%7C01%7Cnicholas.ackerley%40NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca%7Cac5d2e4c36664ea694b808dae5129730%7C05c95b3390ca49d5b644288b930b912b%7C0%7C0%7C638074165384018996%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=v7pfKwGsLxDTmn%2Bjt4xIG%2BvgYF%2F6aSUtkfZUoB0ctfA%3D&reserved=0> emails on the NRCan Intranet.
Ce courriel provient de l'extérieur des RNCan. Ne cliquez pas sur les liens et n'ouvrez pas les pièces jointes, à moins de connaître l'expéditeur et croire que le contenu est sécuritaire. Pour de plus amples renseignements, veuillez consulter Comment identifier des courriels d'hameçonnages<https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fintranet.nrcan.gc.ca%2Fservices-policies%2Fdont-get-scammed-cyber-security-101&data=05%7C01%7Cnicholas.ackerley%40NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca%7Cac5d2e4c36664ea694b808dae5129730%7C05c95b3390ca49d5b644288b930b912b%7C0%7C0%7C638074165384018996%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=v7pfKwGsLxDTmn%2Bjt4xIG%2BvgYF%2F6aSUtkfZUoB0ctfA%3D&reserved=0> dans l'intranet des RNCan.
Chad Trabant
Thank you to all that submitted votes on the recommendation to proceed with
technical proposal evaluation and those that volunteered to be on the
technical review team. With 20 "yes" votes and no dissenting votes, an
Evaluation Review team has been identified and asked to begin their work.
The group is:
Mark Chadwick (GNS)
Roman Racine (ETH Zürich)
Philip Crotwell (U of South Carolina)
Charles Blais (Natural Resources Canada)
David Easton (Nanometrics)
Eliseo Banda (Kinemetrics)
Thanks in advance to the team.
regards,
Chad Trabant
On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 10:20 AM Chad Trabant <chad.t...@earthscope.org>
wrote: