Other METR Systems --> METR System:
METR coordination

This triple is bi-directional. See also METR System --> Other METR Systems: 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.

Other METR Systems (Source Physical Object): The 'Other METR System' represents...

METR System (Destination 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.

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

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

Selected Solution

METR: Regulation Requirements - Secure Internet (ITS)

Solution Description

This solution is used within the E.U. and the U.S.. It combines standards associated with METR: Regulation Requirements with those for I-I: Secure Internet (ITS). The METR: Regulation Requirements standards include upper-layer standards required to exchange traffic regulations with a regulatory center. 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 gap

ISO 24315-4
ISO 24315-8
Click gap icons for more info.
Mgmt
Facilities
Mind the gap

(None)
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