METR Discrepancy Contact System --> METR Regulation System:
METR coordination

This triple is bi-directional. See also METR Regulation System --> METR Discrepancy Contact System: METR coordination

Definitions

METR coordination (Information Flow): This flow supports the free form exchange of messages, information or data enabling METR components to raise awareness and foster resolution to overlaps, discrepancies or issues that impact METR's mission to provide trustworthy information to METR users. Also used to resolve interpretation and consistency issues.

METR Discrepancy Contact System (Source Physical Object): The 'METR Discrepancy Contact System' represents any external system that a METR Regulation System might need to notify about the existence of a discrepancy report. For example, the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for a vehicle model that repeatedly incorrectly reports discrepancies should be notified of the problem in its discrepancy reporting logic.
The MDCS may register its availability as a service, and its associated cyber location information, with the Object Registration and Discovery Service (ORDS).

METR Regulation System (Destination Physical Object): The 'METR Regulation System' creates and maintains electronic versions of traffic regulations for eventual consumption by traveler systems and other interested parties. Once approved, each rule is signed and traceable to a specific Rule-Maker. Depending on local policies and division of labor, the METR Regulation Center might need to coordinate with a METR Verification Center, a Maintenance and Construction Management System, and METR Discrepancy Handling Centers.

Included In

This Triple is in the following Service Packages:

  • None

This triple is associated with the following Functional Objects:

  • None

This Triple is described by the following Functional View Data Flows:

  • None

This Triple has the following triple relationships:

None

Communication Solutions

Solutions are sorted in ascending Gap Severity order. The Gap Severity is the parenthetical number at the end of the solution.

Selected Solution

(None-Data) - Secure Internet (ITS)

Solution Description

This solution is used within Australia, Canada, the E.U. and the U.S.. It combines standards associated with (None-Data) with those for I-I: Secure Internet (ITS). The (None-Data) standards include an unspecified set of standards at the upper layers. The I-I: Secure Internet (ITS) standards include lower-layer standards that support secure communications between ITS equipment using X.509 or IEEE 1609.2 security certificates.

ITS Application Entity
Mind the gapMind the gapMind the gap

Development needed
Click gap icons for more info.
Mgmt
Facilities
Mind the gap

Development needed
Security
Mind the gapMind the gap
TransNet
Access

Internet Subnet Alternatives
TransNet TransNet

TempBCL2 TempSTDL2

TempBCL3 TempSTDL3

TempBCL4 TempSTDL4

TempBCL5 TempSTDL5

Access Access

TempBCL2 TempSTDL2

TempBCL3 TempSTDL3

TempBCL4 TempSTDL4

TempBCL5 TempSTDL5

ITS Application ITS Application

TempBCL2 TempSTDL2

TempBCL3 TempSTDL3

TempBCL4 TempSTDL4

TempBCL5 TempSTDL5

Mgmt Mgmt

TempBCL2 TempSTDL2

TempBCL3 TempSTDL3

TempBCL4 TempSTDL4

TempBCL5 TempSTDL5

Facility Facility

TempBCL2 TempSTDL2

TempBCL3 TempSTDL3

TempBCL4 TempSTDL4

TempBCL5 TempSTDL5

Security Security

TempBCL2 TempSTDL2

TempBCL3 TempSTDL3

TempBCL4 TempSTDL4

TempBCL5 TempSTDL5

Note that some layers might have alternatives, in which case all of the gap icons associated with every alternative may be shown on the diagram, but the solution severity calculations (and resulting ordering of solutions) includes only the issues associated with the default (i.e., best, least severe) alternative.

Characteristics

Characteristic Value
Time Context Recent
Spatial Context Regional
Acknowledgement True
Cardinality Unicast
Initiator Source
Authenticable True
Encrypt True


Interoperability Description
Regional Interoperability throughout the geopolitical region is highly desirable, but if implemented differently in different transportation management jurisdictions, significant benefits will still accrue in each jurisdiction. Regardless, this Information Flow Triple should be implemented consistently within a transportation jurisdiction (i.e., the scope of a regional architecture).

Security

Information Flow Security
  Confidentiality Integrity Availability
Rating Moderate High Moderate
Basis The scope of coordination could expose some of the inner workings that imply policy or technical workings that could be used negatively against METR subsystems. While it would be ideal if METR operations were completely transparent, at least in early phases it is likely that coordination activies are in flux and could be taken out of context. There is no legitimate reason to observe this information regardless. This information may eventually (once it is reconciled throughout the METR system) be used to guide driver and AV behavior; incorrect or manipulated information could result in a vehicle performing a traffic movement that is not permitted, which in some cases (e.g., right turn on red) could be quite dangerous. Discrepancy management should ideally always be functioning, but especially early on as METR deployments evolve, it is unreasonable to expect, and would have minimal impact, if discrepancy related flows were reasonably available. HIGH may be viable in the future, and may be necessary if automated vehicles depend on METR information to be consistently correct at all times.


Security Characteristics Value
Authenticable True
Encrypt True