|
Systems WG- Developing a letter to Tom Parker re-stating scope of
work packages. The scope as proposed:
- WP2 is still not manned, due to WP1 work not being complete.
Strategy is not in place, but hesitance to create a reader specification
- WP3 producing only a guideline for security best practices, not
a specification
- WP4 will complete high-level system functionality guideline and
interface specification from operator system-regional system.
Extensive discussion on what will achieve interoperability: what
can be the security approach, what needs to be specified for reader
and interfaces.
Final determination is to wait for the proposal from Systems WG
leaders, then to have a strategy meeting between Tom Parker, Fin Mgmt
leaders, and System WG leaders.
Action: Tim W. will speak with Bob Murray and Gary Yamamura to coordinate
sharing of security approach of BART with WP3.
|
Discussion focused on the Work Packages and the results of the latest
face-to-face meetings of WP1 and WL4 held in Washington DC. Tim stated
that there was a proposed change to the totality of the work the 4 work
packages would address. These changes:
Work Package 2 cannot be addressed at this time. The WP1 deliverable
must be closer to completion before this group can be staffed. Also,
in the WP1 meeting, much discussion centered on the focus of WP2. The
bottom line is that the group expressed a doubt as to the strategy for
WP2, that is, will it specify the functionality of the reader?
Work Package 3 has been focusing on (and, it was decided, will focus
strictly on) a security guideline document. The thought was that card
and system security is a key differentiator of vendors and operators
largely task the development of security to the selected contractors
providing fare management systems.
Work Package 4 work has progressed on the high-level functionality
document they have been working on. The group decided that this document,
coupled with a specification of the interface between the operator system
and the regional system would be the focus of the WP4 team. David deKozan
tasked the team with manning a sub-group that would attempt to develop
a 1st draft document in 6 weeks (approximately Week of Aug
20). The WP4 group was accepting of this proposed change to their scope.
David deKosan will draft a letter to Tom Parker that will address the
proposed changes in detail. Tim and Tam pointed out, however, that these
changes were not really the Work Packages/System WG’s to make. The rail
CEOs set out the overall goals and the Fin Mgmt Committee proposed the
work packages and their scopes to the task force in June 2003 meetings
in San Jose. The structure and scopes were accepted at that time.
Tim added that he asked the question of David and Tam: "Without
the reader functionality specified and without the security specified
will the deliverables as now proposed achieve interoperability?"
To which, the answer was yes.
The leadership group then went on to discuss the possibilities of achieving
interoperability. Regarding security, it was discussed that the work
package must define a process to implement security. Specifically a
discussion of the architecture of how to bridge different security systems.
Tom gave BART’s work integrating to Translink. He stated that BART readers
have multiple SAM sites and have a regional key to achieve interoperability
and a BART key to maintain autonomy. Bart can potentially provide documentation.
The final guidance of the group was that the deliverables from WP3 can’t
be less than what was promised to the Rail CEOs.
Tim took on the action of speaking with Bob Murray and Gary Yamamura
regarding this issue.
Shifting to the discussion of specifying the functionality of the reader,
Tom stated that he feels that a "driver" must be developed
that can allow a gate to work with a reader similar to a PC working
with a printer. Tom asked the group if they felt this would allow down-stream
change-out of readers. Rick stated that the complexity of this integration
would depend on if the reader was supported
Rick stated that he saw two options for the reader (WP2):
- Standardize the reader functionality AND the interface to the operator
system.
- Only standardize interface between the reader and the operator system
It was noted that vendors would certainly oppose the first option because
this is where substantial IP resides (and where competitive advantages/
differentiation cases are made) and that this would require extensive
R&D and integration.
The goal was stated as interoperability at a reasonable price. Tim
attempted to develop a block diagram to understand the discussion and
verbally presented the figure below:
Driver Interface Interface
Tom suggested using the TCIP specifications as a baseline and developing
the interfaces above. Rick noted that Visa/MasterCard have specs more
in line with what the Systems WG is proposing.
The next steps were determined to be:
- Get the proposal from the Systems WG
- Meeting between Tom Parker, Rick, Tam, and Systems WG
|
