RFC - Improve GNSS integrity information reporting #30
Open
bgptiste wants to merge 5 commits into
Open
Conversation
…fing and jamming status entries + add NovAtel output evaluation
Collaborator
|
@peterbarker @auturgy @tridge @julianoes Your feedback needed please. Thanks @bgptiste |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The current GNSS_INTEGRITY message provides GNSS resilience information at the receiver level, such as jamming, spoofing, and signal authentication status. However, it does not expose information at the individual RF-band level.
This RFC proposes introducing a new
GNSS_BANDSmessage to complementGNSS_INTEGRITYby reporting jamming information for each RF front-end / frequency band. Providing per-band visibility would enable operators to better understand interference events, support post-flight analysis, and facilitate decision-making.The proposal also aims to keep these two messages as vendor-agnostic as possible, allowing different GNSS receiver manufacturers to populate the same fields using equivalent information while avoiding vendor-specific abstractions. The primary GNSS receiver outputs considered in this work are those from Septentrio (Mosaic-G5 and X5) and u-blox (X20 and F9) receivers, whose formats are supported by PX4 and ArduPilot. NovAtel OEM7 receiver outputs were also studied as secondary references to support and validate this vendor-agnostic approach.
Full details are provided in the dedicated RFC.
Thanks to @dakejahl for the valuable discussions that helped shape this proposal.
I look forward to your feedback and any suggestions for improvement.