Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Requirement: Remove blockette support #20

Open
krischer opened this issue Jan 3, 2018 · 11 comments
Open

Requirement: Remove blockette support #20

krischer opened this issue Jan 3, 2018 · 11 comments
Labels
additional requirement simplification/reorganization

Comments

@krischer
Copy link
Contributor

krischer commented Jan 3, 2018

Simplification of MiniSEED2: Remove blockette support.
@andres-h andres-h mentioned this issue Jan 8, 2018
Open
@crotwell
Copy link

crotwell commented Jan 8, 2018

There should be a standard mapping any important information in existing blockettes into the new additional/optional data structure, #14, as required by #7

@aringler-usgs aringler-usgs mentioned this issue Jan 11, 2018
Open
@krischer
Copy link
Contributor Author

Summary

(Please let me know if I missed a point or misunderstood something)

This goes together with #14 and #7. Please vote on:

  1. Should we remove the abstraction of blockettes and replace it with something in Requirement: Allow addition of arbitrary headers by equipment manufacturers, operators, etc. without the need for authorization or approval by the FDSN #14? (Yes/No)

@crotwell
Copy link

Yes!!!

@chad-earthscope
Copy link
Member

  1. Yes.

@kaestli
Copy link

kaestli commented Jan 30, 2018 •
edited
Loading

  1. Yes, remove (no, don't replace with anything which is not defined contentwise)

@ozym
Copy link

ozym commented Jan 30, 2018

  1. Yes

@ketchum-usgs
Copy link

Yes, I am assuming one of the key-value add ons would be used for further extensions of the header

@claudiodsf
Copy link

Yes!

@ihenson-bsl
Copy link

  1. yes

@ValleeMartin
Copy link

  1. Yes

1 similar comment
@JoseAntonioJara
Copy link

  1. Yes

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
additional requirement simplification/reorganization
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
10 participants
@crotwell @kaestli @krischer @claudiodsf @ozym @ketchum-usgs @chad-earthscope @JoseAntonioJara @ihenson-bsl @ValleeMartin