This solution is used within the U.S.. It combines standards associated with US: TCIP with those for I–I: Guaranteed Secure Internet (ITS). The US: TCIP standards include upper–layer standards required to implement transit–related communications. The I–I: Guaranteed Secure Internet (ITS) standards include lower–layer standards that support secure communications with guaranteed delivery between ITS equipment using X.509 or IEEE 1609.2 security certificates.
| Level | DocNum | FullName | Description |
|---|
| Mgmt | IETF RFC 3411 | An Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks | This standard (RFC) defines the basic architecture for SNMPv3 and includes the definition of information objects for managing the SNMP entity's architecture. |
|---|
| Mgmt | IETF RFC 3412 | Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) | This standard (RFC) contains a MIB that assists in managing the message processing and dispatching subsystem of an SNMP entity. |
|---|
| Mgmt | IETF RFC 3413 | Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Applications | This standard (RFC) includes MIBs that allow for the configuration and management of remote Targets, Notifications, and Proxys. |
|---|
| Mgmt | IETF RFC 3414 | User–based Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3) | This standard (RFC) contains a MIB that assists in configuring and managing the user–based security model. |
|---|
| Mgmt | IETF RFC 3415 | View–based Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) | This standard (RFC) contains a MIB that supports the configuration and management of the View–based access control model of SNMP. |
|---|
| Mgmt | IETF RFC 3416 | Version 2 of the Protocol Operations for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) | This standard (RFC) defines the message structure and protocol operations used by SNMPv3. |
|---|
| Mgmt | IETF RFC 3418 | Management Information Base (MIB) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) | This standard (RFC) defines the MIB to configure and manage an SNMP entity. |
|---|
| Mgmt | IETF RFC 4293 | Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP) | This standard (RFC) defines the MIB that manages an IP entity. |
|---|
| Security | IETF RFC 5280 | Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile | This standard (RFC) defines how to use X.509 certificates for secure communications over the Internet. |
|---|
| Security | IETF RFC 8446 | The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol | This standard (RFC) specifies Version 1.3 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. The TLS protocol provides communications security over the Internet. The protocol allows client/server applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery. |
|---|
| ITS Application Entity | APTA TCIP–S–001 Vol 2 | Transit Communications Interface Profiles – TCIP Data and Dialog Definitions | This standard defines the data concepts used by the TCIP standard. |
|---|
| Facilities | W3C XML | Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth Edition) | This standard defines a generic markup language that can be used to share customizable information by using start and stop tags within the text. |
|---|
| Facilities | APTA TCIP–S–001 Vol 2 | Transit Communications Interface Profiles – TCIP Data and Dialog Definitions | This standard defines the data concepts used by the TCIP standard. |
|---|
| TransNet | IETF RFC 2460 | Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification | This standard (RFC) specifies version 6 of the Internet Protocol (IPv6), also sometimes referred to as IP Next Generation or IPng. |
|---|
| TransNet | IETF RFC 4291 | IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture | This standard (RFC) defines the addressing architecture of the IP Version 6 (IPv6) protocol. It includes the IPv6 addressing model, text representations of IPv6 addresses, definition of IPv6 unicast addresses, anycast addresses, and multicast addresses, and an IPv6 node's required addresses. |
|---|
| TransNet | IETF RFC 4443 | Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification | This standard (RFC) defines the control messages to manage IPv6. |
|---|
| TransNet | IETF RFC 793 | Transmission Control Protocol | This standard (RFC) defines the main connection–oriented Transport Layer protocol used on Internet–based networks. |
|---|
| Access | | Internet Subnet Alternatives | A set of alternative standards that includes any Subnet Layer method of connecting to the Internet. |
|---|
Multiple significant and minor issues. For existing deployments, the chosen solution is likely deficient in security or management capabilities, and the issues should be reviewed and upgrades developed as needed. Some solutions in this category may also be becoming obsolete from an interoperability perspective and if this is the case, then upgrades should be planned as soon as possible. For new deployments, the solution may be viable for pilots when applied to the triples it supports; such pilot deployments should consider a path to addressing these issues as a part of their design activities. The solution does not provide sufficient interoperability, management, and security to enable proper, full–scale deployment without additional work.
| Issue | Severity | Description | Associated Standard | Associated Triple |
|---|
| Encoding rules not defined | High | The standards do not unambiguously define which set of encoding rules to use. | (None) | (All) |
|---|
| Out of date (medium) | Medium | The standard includes normative references to other standards that have been subject to significant changes that can impact interoperability or security of systems and the industry has not specified if and how these updates should be implemented for deployments of this standard. | TCIP – Data | (All) |
|---|
| Secure data access not provided | Medium | The solution does not define rules on how the application entity authenticates requests to accept or provide data. | (None) | (All) |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | Knox County EMA=>emergency transit service request=>ETHRA Transportation Dispatch Center |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | Blount County EMA=>emergency transit service request=>ETHRA Transportation Dispatch Center |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | ETHRA Transportation Dispatch Center=>emergency transit service response=>Blount County EMA |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | ETHRA Transportation Dispatch Center=>emergency transit service response=>Knox County EMA |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | ETHRA Transportation Dispatch Center=>emergency transit service response=>Loudon County EMA |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | ETHRA Transportation Dispatch Center=>emergency transit service response=>Sevier County EMA |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | The LIFT Dispatch Center=>emergency transit service response=>Knox County EMA |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | Knox County EMA=>emergency transit service request=>KAT Transit Dispatch Center |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | Knox County EMA=>emergency transit service request=>The LIFT Dispatch Center |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | Knox County EMA=>emergency transit service request=>Knox County CAC Transit Dispatch Center |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | Knox County CAC Transit Dispatch Center=>emergency transit service response=>Knox County EMA |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | Loudon County EMA=>emergency transit service request=>ETHRA Transportation Dispatch Center |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | Sevier County EMA=>emergency transit service request=>ETHRA Transportation Dispatch Center |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (medium) | Medium | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design may not meet practical constraints because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | KAT Transit Dispatch Center=>emergency transit service response=>Knox County EMA |
|---|
| Data not defined in standard format | Low | The definition of data concepts should conform to ISO 14817–1 to promote reuse among ITS. | TCIP – Data | (All) |
|---|
| Source | Destination | Flow |
|---|
| Blount County EMA | ETHRA Transportation Dispatch Center | emergency transit service request |
|---|
| ETHRA Transportation Dispatch Center | Blount County EMA | emergency transit service response |
|---|
| ETHRA Transportation Dispatch Center | Knox County EMA | emergency transit service response |
|---|
| ETHRA Transportation Dispatch Center | Loudon County EMA | emergency transit service response |
|---|
| ETHRA Transportation Dispatch Center | Sevier County EMA | emergency transit service response |
|---|
| KAT Transit Dispatch Center | Knox County EMA | emergency transit service response |
|---|
| Knox County CAC Transit Dispatch Center | Knox County EMA | emergency transit service response |
|---|
| Knox County EMA | ETHRA Transportation Dispatch Center | emergency transit service request |
|---|
| Knox County EMA | KAT Transit Dispatch Center | emergency transit service request |
|---|
| Knox County EMA | Knox County CAC Transit Dispatch Center | emergency transit service request |
|---|
| Knox County EMA | The LIFT Dispatch Center | emergency transit service request |
|---|
| Loudon County EMA | ETHRA Transportation Dispatch Center | emergency transit service request |
|---|
| Sevier County EMA | ETHRA Transportation Dispatch Center | emergency transit service request |
|---|
| The LIFT Dispatch Center | Knox County EMA | emergency transit service response |
|---|