US: GTFS static - Secure Wireless Internet (ITS)
Description
This solution is used within the U.S.. It combines standards associated with US: GTFS static with those for I–M: Secure Wireless Internet (ITS). The US: GTFS static standards include upper–layer standards required to implement static, public, transit–related communications. The I–M: Secure Wireless Internet (ITS) standards include lower–layer standards that support secure communications between two entities, either or both of which may be mobile devices, but they must be stationary or only moving within wireless range of a single wireless access point (e.g., a parked car). Security is based on X.509 or IEEE 1609.2 certificates. A non–mobile (if any) endpoint may connect to the service provider using any Internet connection method.
Includes Standards
| 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 | GTFS | General Transit Feed Specification | This document defines a common (open data) format for exchanging public transportation schedules and associated geographic information. |
| Facilities | IETF RFC 7230 | Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing | This standard (RFC) defines the main Application Layer protocol used for the world–wide web. |
| Facilities | ISO 21320–1 | Information technology — Document Container File — Part 1: Core | ISO/IEC 21320–1 specifies the core requirements for 1) document container files, and 2) implementations that produce and/or consume document container files. It normatively references the Zip File Format Specification version 6.3.3 of PKWARE(R) Inc. Document container files are conforming Zip files as specified by that document. |
| Facilities | IETF RFC 4180 | Common Format and MIME Type for Comma–Separated Values (CSV) Files | This standard (RFC) documents the format used for Comma–Separated Values (CSV) files and registers the associated MIME type "text/csv". |
| 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 | 3GPP Network | 3GPP Cellular Communications Network | This proxy standard represents a variety of 3GPP releases and underlying standards and technologies that rely upon cellular base stations for connectivity, including 3G, 4G, and the emerging 5G technologies. |
Readiness: High–Moderate
Readiness Description
One significant or possibly a couple minor issues. For existing deployments, the chosen solution likely has identified security or management issues not addressed by the communications solution. Deployers should consider additional security measures, such as communications link and physical security as part of these solutions. They should also review the management issues to see if they are relevant to their deployment and would require mitigation. For new deployments, the deployment efforts should consider a path to addressing these issues as a part of their design activities. The solution does not by itself provide a fully secure implementation without additional work.