US: TCIP - Guaranteed Secure Internet (ITS)

Description

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.

Includes Standards

LevelDocNumFullNameDescription
MgmtIETF RFC 3411An Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Management FrameworksThis standard (RFC) defines the basic architecture for SNMPv3 and includes the definition of information objects for managing the SNMP entity's architecture.
MgmtIETF RFC 3412Message 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.
MgmtIETF RFC 3413Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) ApplicationsThis standard (RFC) includes MIBs that allow for the configuration and management of remote Targets, Notifications, and Proxys.
MgmtIETF RFC 3414User–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.
MgmtIETF RFC 3415View–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.
MgmtIETF RFC 3416Version 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.
MgmtIETF RFC 3418Management Information Base (MIB) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)This standard (RFC) defines the MIB to configure and manage an SNMP entity.
MgmtIETF RFC 4293Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)This standard (RFC) defines the MIB that manages an IP entity.
SecurityIETF RFC 5280Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) ProfileThis standard (RFC) defines how to use X.509 certificates for secure communications over the Internet.
SecurityIETF RFC 8446The Transport Layer Security (TLS) ProtocolThis 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 EntityAPTA TCIP–S–001 Vol 2Transit Communications Interface Profiles – TCIP Data and Dialog DefinitionsThis standard defines the data concepts used by the TCIP standard.
FacilitiesW3C XMLExtensible 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.
FacilitiesAPTA TCIP–S–001 Vol 2Transit Communications Interface Profiles – TCIP Data and Dialog DefinitionsThis standard defines the data concepts used by the TCIP standard.
TransNetIETF RFC 2460Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) SpecificationThis standard (RFC) specifies version 6 of the Internet Protocol (IPv6), also sometimes referred to as IP Next Generation or IPng.
TransNetIETF RFC 4291IP Version 6 Addressing ArchitectureThis 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.
TransNetIETF RFC 4443Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) SpecificationThis standard (RFC) defines the control messages to manage IPv6.
TransNetIETF RFC 793Transmission Control ProtocolThis standard (RFC) defines the main connection–oriented Transport Layer protocol used on Internet–based networks.
Access Internet Subnet AlternativesA set of alternative standards that includes any Subnet Layer method of connecting to the Internet.

Readiness: Moderate–Low

Readiness Description

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.

Issues

IssueSeverityDescriptionAssociated StandardAssociated Triple
Encoding rules not definedHighThe standards do not unambiguously define which set of encoding rules to use.(None)(All)
Out of date (medium)MediumThe 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 providedMediumThe 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)MediumWhile 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)MediumWhile 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)MediumWhile 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)MediumWhile 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)MediumWhile 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)MediumWhile 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)MediumWhile 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)MediumWhile 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)MediumWhile 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)MediumWhile 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)MediumWhile 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)MediumWhile 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)MediumWhile 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)MediumWhile 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 formatLowThe definition of data concepts should conform to ISO 14817–1 to promote reuse among ITS.TCIP – Data(All)

Supports Interfaces

SourceDestinationFlow
Blount County EMAETHRA Transportation Dispatch Centeremergency transit service request
ETHRA Transportation Dispatch CenterBlount County EMAemergency transit service response
ETHRA Transportation Dispatch CenterKnox County EMAemergency transit service response
ETHRA Transportation Dispatch CenterLoudon County EMAemergency transit service response
ETHRA Transportation Dispatch CenterSevier County EMAemergency transit service response
KAT Transit Dispatch CenterKnox County EMAemergency transit service response
Knox County CAC Transit Dispatch CenterKnox County EMAemergency transit service response
Knox County EMAETHRA Transportation Dispatch Centeremergency transit service request
Knox County EMAKAT Transit Dispatch Centeremergency transit service request
Knox County EMAKnox County CAC Transit Dispatch Centeremergency transit service request
Knox County EMAThe LIFT Dispatch Centeremergency transit service request
Loudon County EMAETHRA Transportation Dispatch Centeremergency transit service request
Sevier County EMAETHRA Transportation Dispatch Centeremergency transit service request
The LIFT Dispatch CenterKnox County EMAemergency transit service response