International Federation of Digital Seismograph Networks

Thread: Re: Report from SeedLink v4 proposal review team

None
Started: 2023-01-06 17:26:05
Last activity: 2023-01-06 17:26:05
Mohsen Ashtiany
2023-01-06 17:26:05
´╗┐Dear Colleagues

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-products-bounce<at>lists.fdsn.org> wrote:
´╗┐
Disaster And Emergency Management Authority (AFAD) Earthquake Departmant votes "yes" for this proposal.

Regards

Tugbay KILIC


From: fdsn-wg3-products-bounce<at>lists.fdsn.org <fdsn-wg3-products-bounce<at>lists.fdsn.org>
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2022 9:22 PM
To: FDSN Working Group III <fdsn-wg3-products<at>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)

https://www.afad.gov.tr/tr/E-Posta-Feragatnamesi-Disclaimer



----------------------
FDSN Working Group III
Topic home: http://www.fdsn.org/message-center/topic/fdsn-wg3-products/ | Unsubscribe: fdsn-wg3-products-unsubscribe<at>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/