Again, I am ok with including it if the group feels it should be. However I have to slightly disagree with item 4c. While it is true that the SISO-STD-002 implementation has been implemented successfully for a number of years, it is typically not implemented as our current version of RPR 2 implements. Our version (and the NETN version it is based on) utilizes the structures as defined in SISO-STD-002, but adds a new alternative to the SpreadSpectrumVariantStruct. This is not what SISO-STD-002 recommends. The recommended approach to implementing Link 16 interactions in RPR (according to SISO-STD-002) is to create completely new subclasses to the RawBinaryRadioSignal class and adding them into the RPR FOM. So while the data conveyed and some of the underlying data structures are the same, the approach is very different. The two are not compatible.


To unsubscribe from the SAC-PDG-RPR list, click the following link: