US: WZDx - Guaranteed Secure Internet (ITS)

Description:

This solution is used within Canada and the U.S.. It combines standards associated with US: WZDx with those for I-I: Guaranteed Secure Internet (ITS). The US: WZDx standards include upper-layer standards required to implement work zone information data exchanges. 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.

Comm Profile: I-I: Guaranteed Secure Internet (ITS)

Level	Doc #	Standard	Description
Access		Internet Subnet Alternatives	A set of alternative standards that includes any Subnet Layer method of connecting to the Internet.
Mgmt		Bundle: SNMPv3 MIB	A bundle of standards (RFCs) that groups the common management information bases (MIBs) used to manage IP networks at the transport layer and below using SNMPv3.
Security		Secure Session Alternatives	A set of alternative standards that identifies standards that are used to establish and maintain secure Internet sessions. If an information exchange does not require encryption, the (D)TLS session can negotiate NULL encryption. NOTE: If TCP is selected in the TransNet Layer, one of the TLS alternatives must be selected from this alternative set; if UDP is selected in the TransNet Layer, one of the DTLS alternatives must be selected from this alternative set.
TransNet	IETF RFC 9293	IETF RFC 9293 TCP	This document specifies the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). TCP is an important transport-layer protocol in the Internet protocol stack, and it has continuously evolved over decades of use and growth of the Internet. Over this time, a number of changes have been made to TCP as it was specified in RFC 793, though these have only been documented in a piecemeal fashion. This document collects and brings those changes together with the protocol specification from RFC 793. This document obsoletes RFC 793, as well as RFCs 879, 2873, 6093, 6429, 6528, and 6691 that updated parts of RFC 793. It updates RFCs 1011 and 1122, and it should be considered as a replacement for the portions of those documents dealing with TCP requirements. It also updates RFC 5961 by adding a small clarification in reset handling while in the SYN-RECEIVED state. The TCP header control bits from RFC 793 have also been updated based on RFC 3168.
TransNet		IP Alternatives	A set of alternative standards that allows for the selection of IPv4 or IPv6.

Data Profile: US: WZDx

Level	Doc #	Standard	Description
Facilities	IETF RFC 7159	IETF RFC 7159 JSON	The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON), a lightweight, text-based, language-independent data interchange format. It was derived from the ECMAScript Programming Language Standard. JSON defines a small set of formatting rules for the portable representation of structured data. This document removes inconsistencies with other specifications of JSON, repairs specification errors, and offers experience-based interoperability guidance.
Facilities	IETF RFC 9110	IETF RFC 9110 HTTP Semantics	The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a stateless application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypertext information systems. This document describes the overall architecture of HTTP, establishes common terminology, and defines aspects of the protocol that are shared by all versions. In this definition are core protocol elements, extensibility mechanisms, and the "http" and "https" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) schemes.
Facilities	IETF RFC 9112	IETF RFC 9112 HTTP/1.1	The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a stateless application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypertext information systems. This document specifies the HTTP/1.1 message syntax, message parsing, connection management, and related security concerns.
ITS Application Entity	WZDx	Work Zone Data Exchange	This standard defines a common format for exchanging work zone information.

Readiness Description:

Two significant or one significant and several 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. 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.