METR Discrepancy Handling System --> Other METR Discrepancy Handling Systems:
discrepancy report details

This triple is bi-directional. See also Other METR Discrepancy Handling Systems --> METR Discrepancy Handling System: discrepancy report details

Definitions

discrepancy report details (Information Flow): While investigating a consolidated discrepancy report, a translator agent might wish to see additional details (e.g., specifics about the time of each report, images included in the report). If so, they can make a request and obtain the discrepancy report details flow. Additionally, discrepancy report details can be transferred between METR Discrepancy Handling Centers.

METR Discrepancy Handling System (Source Physical Object): The 'METR Discrepancy Handling System' receives reports of discrepancies in rules from METR User Systems. It will perform a numerical analysis of discrepancy count vs. time for any given rule, and when warranted, report to the METR Regulation Center those rules with sufficient discrepancy reports to justify further investigation. It is identified as a separate center to provide a level of anonymity for the user that reports the issue. The METR Discrepancy Handling Center may register its availability as a service, and its associated cyber location information, with the Object Registration and Discovery System (ORDS).

Other METR Discrepancy Handling Systems (Destination Physical Object): Depending on deployments scenarios, a discrepancy report might be passed among multiple levels of Discrepancy Handling Systems. For example, a vehicle might be configured to report all its detected discrepancies to an OEM-operated Discrepancy Handling Center. This allows the OEM to become aware of potential problems with its discrepancy detection logic.
Once established thresholds are met, the OEM-operated Discrepancy Handling System might notify a Discrepancy Handling Center operated by a jurisdictional entity. The jurisdictional Discrepancy Handling System can then determine when the METR Regulation System is notified of the reported discrepancies.

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 Moderate Moderate
Basis Discrepancy-handling flows may contain a significant amount of discrepancy reporting information, which could imply behavior in the field, actions of rules-agents and other activities that could be leveraged by bad actors. Information contained in this flow will be used to assess the accuracy of existing rules; this will require some process that strips out incorrect reports, but the number of incorrect reports should be minimized to reduce undue processing. Backoffice discrepancy handling flows should be basically reliable, else the discrepancy handling system will have difficulty functioning, which in turn could lead to negative safety or other impacts in the field.


Security Characteristics Value
Authenticable True
Encrypt True