Intermodal Customer System --> Fleet and Freight Management Center:
intermodal payment information
Definitions
intermodal payment information (Information Flow): The payment arrangement made by the beneficial cargo owner (Intermodal Customer) or the shipper and the receipt that is sent to the destination terminal.
Intermodal Customer System (Source Physical Object): The 'Intermodal Customer System' represents organizations that engage in the shipment of freight, either originator (consigner or shipper) or recipient of the cargo shipment. They enable the movement of goods on routes that require the use of other modes of transportation such as heavy rail, air, sea, etc. The Intermodal Customer System includes those personnel responsible for the movement of freight across international borders.
Fleet and Freight Management Center (Destination Physical Object): The 'Fleet and Freight Management Center' provides the capability for commercial drivers and fleet-freight managers to receive real-time routing information and access databases containing vehicle and/or freight equipment locations as well as carrier, vehicle, freight equipment and driver information. The 'Fleet and Freight Management Center' also provides the capability for fleet managers to monitor the safety and security of their commercial vehicle drivers and fleet.
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
-
Port: Intermodal payment - Secure Internet (ITS) (0)
-
(None-Data) - Secure Internet (ITS) (43)
Selected Solution
Port: Intermodal payment - Secure Internet (ITS)Solution Description
|
ITS Application Entity
UN/CEFACT Cross Industry Invoice (CII)  ISO 20022-1 |
Click gap icons for more info.
|
||
|
Mgmt
|
Facilities
|
Security
|
|
|
TransNet
|
|||
|
Access
Internet Subnet Alternatives |
|||
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 | Low | |
| Basis | Contains an identifier linked to a transaction and an electronic signature. In some cases may contain account information, and so should be considered HIGH. | Payment related information needs to be correct or the user may be inconvenienced or defrauded. Individual transactions may seem small in scope, but as this information is likely used in similar ways for many transactions, compromise could have a significant ripple effect. | No time pressure likely on this flow. | |
| Security Characteristics | Value |
|---|---|
| Authenticable | True |
| Encrypt | True |