International Federation of Digital Seismograph Networks

Thread: Report from SeedLink v4 proposal review team

None
Started: 2022-12-23 10:20:51
Last activity: 2023-02-04 14:39:39
Chad Trabant
2022-12-23 10:20:51
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

-----------------------

  • Jerry Carter
    2022-12-23 10:36:25
    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-products-bounce<at>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-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/


    • Dan Auerbach
      2022-12-23 14:27:13
      Project IDA votes YES.



      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-products-bounce<at>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-products-bounce<at>lists.fdsn.org <fdsn-wg3-products-bounce<at>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-products-unsubscribe<at>lists.fdsn.org <fdsn-wg3-products-unsubscribe<at>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-products-unsubscribe<at>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
    2022-12-29 11:04:36
    South Carolina Seismic Network votes Yes.

    Philip Crotwell

    On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 1:22 PM Chad Trabant (via FDSN) <
    fdsn-wg3-products-bounce<at>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-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/


  • TIm Ahern
    2023-01-01 06:50:20
    EarthScope-Oceans votes yes for this proposal.

    On Dec 23, 2022, at 10:22 AM, Chad Trabant (via FDSN) <fdsn-wg3-products-bounce<at>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-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/


  • Angelo Strollo
    2023-01-04 10:04:00
    GEOFON/GFZ votes "yes" to have the SeedLink version 4 proposal proceed to the evaluation stage.

    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!

    Thanks and regards,
    Angelo Strollo
  • Christos Evangelidis
    2023-01-04 10:34:57
    National Observatory of Athens (NOA) votes YES

    Christos Evangelidis

    On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 8:23 PM Chad Trabant (via FDSN) <
    fdsn-wg3-products-bounce<at>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-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/



    --
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. Christos Evangelidis
    Senior Researcher - Seismologist
    Hellenic Broadband Seismic Network
    INSTITUTE OF GEODYNAMICS
    NATIONAL OBSERVATORY OF ATHENS
    Tel:+30 210 3490043
    Email: cevan<at>noa.gr
    Www: http://members.noa.gr/cevan/en/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------

  • Seiji Tsuboi
    2023-01-04 12:07:02
    JAMSTEC votes yes for this proposal.

    2022年12月24日(土) 3:22 Chad Trabant (via FDSN) <
    fdsn-wg3-products-bounce<at>lists.fdsn.org>:

    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-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/


  • Martin Vallee
    2023-01-05 13:21:56
    GEOSCOPE votes "yes" to have the SeedLink version 4 proposal proceed to the evaluation stage.
    Thanks and regards,
    Martin Vallée
  • Didem Cambaz
    2023-01-05 16:29:42


    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-products-bounce<at>lists.fdsn.org [fdsn-wg3-products-bounce<at>lists.fdsn.org]
    Sent: 23 Aralık 2022 Cuma 21:22
    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

    -----------------------


  • Claudio Satriano
    2023-01-05 19:07:57
    French seismological and geodetic network Résif votes yes.

    Happy new year,
    Claudio Satriano


    Il giorno 23 dic 2022, alle ore 19:22, Chad Trabant (via FDSN) <fdsn-wg3-products-bounce<at>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-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/

    ---------------------------------------------------
    Claudio Satriano
    satriano<at>ipgp.fr <satriano<at>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
    2023-01-06 09:42:36
    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


  • Johannes Schweitzer
    2023-01-06 17:45:32
    Dear Chad,

    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.schweitzer<at>norsar.no
    Mobile: +47 41614946
    Phone: +47 63 80 59 00

    From: fdsn-wg3-products-bounce<at>lists.fdsn.org <fdsn-wg3-products-bounce<at>lists.fdsn.org>
    Sent: Friday, December 23, 2022 7:22 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
    -----------------------

    Attachments
  • Michael Roth
    2023-01-06 18:56:34
    Dear Chad

    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
    2023-01-06 19:05:53
    Hello Chad and a Happy New Year,

    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-products-bounce<at>lists.fdsn.org <fdsn-wg3-products-bounce<at>lists.fdsn.org>
    Sent: Friday, December 23, 2022 12:22 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
    -----------------------

  • Peter Voss
    2023-01-09 07:24:44
    GEUS votes YES.

    Med venlig hilsen / Inussiarnersumik inuulluaqqusillunga / Yours sincerely
    Peter H. Voss

    Seismologist, Ph.D.
    Department of Geophysics
    phone: +45 40 21 62 88
    mail: pv<at>geus.dk
    web: www.geus.dkhttp://www.geus.dk/
    Geological Survey of
    Denmark and Greenland (GEUS)
    Øster Voldgade 10
    1350 Copenhagen K
    Denmark

    [cid:image001.png<at>01D92403.D3791550]



    Fra: fdsn-wg3-products-bounce<at>lists.fdsn.org <fdsn-wg3-products-bounce<at>lists.fdsn.org>
    Sendt: 23. december 2022 19:22
    Til: FDSN Working Group III <fdsn-wg3-products<at>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.

    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
    -----------------------

    Attachments
  • John Clinton
    2023-01-09 09:40:16
    Happy new year to all!

    SED @ ETHZ votes for the recommendation.

    John
  • Mark Chadwick
    2023-01-16 00:25:39
    GNS Science New Zealand, votes yes to have the SeedLink version 4 proposal proceed to the evaluation stage.

    Mark Chadwick

    From: fdsn-wg3-products-bounce<at>lists.fdsn.org <fdsn-wg3-products-bounce<at>lists.fdsn.org>
    Sent: Saturday, 24 December 2022 07:22
    To: FDSN Working Group III <fdsn-wg3-products<at>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
    2023-01-17 09:38:31
    Dear all!

    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-products-bounce<at>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-products-unsubscribe<at>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


    Attachments
  • Ackerley, Nicholas
    2023-01-17 18:54:30
    CHIS/NRCan vote yes, and nominate Charles Blais for the review team.

    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.ackerley<at>nrcan-rncan.gc.ca<nicholas.ackerley<at>nrcan-rncan.gc.ca> / 343-551-3972
    http://www.earthquakescanada.ca/

    From: fdsn-wg3-products-bounce<at>lists.fdsn.org <fdsn-wg3-products-bounce<at>lists.fdsn.org>
    Sent: December 23, 2022 13:22
    To: FDSN Working Group III <fdsn-wg3-products<at>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 Phishinghttps://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'hameçonnageshttps://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
    2023-02-04 14:39:39
    Dear WG3 members,

    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.trabant<at>earthscope.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

    -----------------------