METR System --> METR Rule-Maker/Agent:
METR feedback

Definitions

METR feedback (Information Flow): This flow supports the presentation of issues requiring corrective actions necessary before information entered into a METR Regulation Center, can be approved. This flow can also be used to alert the rule translation agent that the METR Regulation Center has become aware of either a user-identified or system-identified discrepancy with previously distributed METR information which may require corrective actions. METR feedback can also be used to inform the rule translator agent of a newly discovered physical rule for further analysis and approval.

METR System (Source Physical Object): The 'METR System' creates and maintains electronic versions of traffic rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes that have official status and must be understood by all motor vehicle operators and intelligent vehicles that operate at higher automation levels. This system represents multiple authorities that operate at local, regional, state, and national levels and represents organizations that establish, manage, and enact the traffic code. Each electronic rule is approved, signed, and traceable to a specific rule-maker. Rules are independently verified. Any identified or reported rule discrepancies are analyzed, investigated, and addressed.

METR Rule-Maker/Agent (Destination Physical Object): The 'METR Rule-Maker/Agent' represents the entity that has the legal authority to establish and digitally sign approved METR rules. An agent is the person that enters the electronic version of the rule into the METR system.

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:

  • None

This Triple has the following triple relationships:

None

Communication Solutions

No communications solutions identified.

Characteristics

None defined


Interoperability Description
Not Applicable Interoperability ratings don't apply per se to some types of interfaces like human interfaces. These interfaces may still benefit from associated standards (e.g., ergonomic and human factors standards for human interfaces), but the primary motive for these standards is not interoperability.

Security

Information Flow Security
  Confidentiality Integrity Availability
Rating Moderate Moderate Low
Basis Changes to rules and the information exchanged as part of that process should be held in context; observation by third parties may enable an attack on the rules themselves, and so should be avoided. Changes to rules must be correct as they could have impacts on vehicles and others in the field. While some rules could lower this requirement based on the severity of impact of an alteration in that rule type, in practice this information is likely distributed the same way for every rule type, so default to the most severe requirement. There should be many opportunities to provide this feedback, though as this is a C2C flow there is no practical reason this flow should not be able to easily attain a high availability.