Event Promoter System --> Parking Management Center:
event plans

Definitions

event plans (Information Flow): Plans for major events possibly impacting traffic.

Event Promoter System (Source Physical Object): 'Event Promoter System' represents Special Event Sponsors that have knowledge of events that may impact travel on roadways or other modal means. Examples of special event sponsors include sporting events, conventions, motorcades/parades, and public/political events. These promoters interface to the ITS to provide event information such as date, time, estimated duration, location, and any other information pertinent to traffic movement in the surrounding area.

Parking Management Center (Destination Physical Object): The 'Parking Management Center' manages one or more parking lots by providing configuration and control of field infrastructure, user account management and interfaces with financial systems to manage payment. This p-object takes the back office portion of the Parking Management System's functionality as it was defined in ARC-IT 8.3 and prior.

Included In

This Triple is in the following Service Packages:

This triple is associated with the following Functional Objects:

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

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) - OMG DDS

Solution Description

This solution is used within the U.S.. It combines standards associated with (None-Data) with those for OMG DDS. The (None-Data) standards include an unspecified set of standards at the upper layers. The OMG DDS standards include lower-layer standards that support secure data sharing and command operations between remote devices.

ITS Application Entity
Mind the gap

Development needed
Click gap icons for more info.
Mgmt

OMG DDS
Facilities
Mind the gapMind the gap

Development needed
OMG DDS
OMG DDS-RPC
OMG DDSI-RTPS
Security

OMG DDS-Security
TransNet

IETF RFC 768
IP Alternatives
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 Destination
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 This will include PII of the event contact person, which should be protected from casual viewing. This flow will also include details of the planned event, which in some circumstances might not be entire public information and so again, should not be casually viewable. Personal contact information needs to be correct, but so do the details of the planned event because of the potential severity of the event's impact. Generally the more significant the potential impact of the event, the higher this should be, but never below MODERATE. There should be other mechanisms for getting this information, otherwise it would match integrity.


Security Characteristics Value
Authenticable True
Encrypt True