This solution is used within Australia, the E.U. and the U.S.. It combines standards associated with TPEG2 with those for I–I: Secure Internet (ITS). The TPEG2 standards include upper–layer standards required to support multi–modal information services.. The I–I: Secure Internet (ITS) standards include lower–layer standards that support secure communications 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. |
|---|
| Mgmt | ISO 21219–6 | Intelligent transport systems – Traffic and travel information via transport protocol experts group, generation 2(TPEG2) –– Part 6: Message management container (TPEG2–MMC) | ISO 21219–6 adds a basic toolkit definition to the ISO 21219 series specifying the Message Management Container (MMC), which is used by all TPEG applications to provide information about the handling of messages on the TPEG client side. The MMC holds administrative information allowing a decoder to handle the message appropriately. This information is not aimed at the end user. The MMC is a toolkit and not a stand–alone application but is included in TPEG applications. |
|---|
| 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. |
|---|
| Security | ISO 21219–24 | Intelligent transport systems – Traffic and travel information (TTI) via transport protocol experts group, generation 2 (TPEG2) –– Part 24: Light encryption (TPEG2–LTE) | ISO/TS 21219–24 defines the LTE encryption mechanism for TPEG Service Data Frames. It has been specifically designed for use with Business–to–Business (B2B) business models. The objective of this document is to provide a simple to use, yet effective Conditional Access mechanism for TPEG including encryption for use with both broadcast and/or point–to–point delivery. For both service providers and device manufacturers, a standardized conditional access mechanism is beneficial to avoid a proliferation of proprietary methods with multiplied implementation effort and lead times. |
|---|
| ITS Application Entity | ISO 21219–15 | Intelligent transport systems –– Traffic and travel information (TTI) via transport protocol experts group, generation 2 (TPEG2) –– Part 15: Traffic event compact (TPEG2–TEC) | ISO/TS 21219–15 specifies the TPEG application: Traffic Event Compact. This application has been specifically designed to support information about traffic events (e.g. road works, traffic jams). A specific form of traffic events are local hazard warnings which, being safety–related messages, are sent with high priority to warn a driver that may encounter dangerous situations (e.g. black–ice, accident beyond curves, obstacles on road, etc.) unexpectedly. |
|---|
| Facilities | No Standard Needed | No Standard Needed | The services related to this portion of the stack are not critical within the scope of this solution. |
|---|
| 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. |
|---|
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.
| Issue | Severity | Description | Associated Standard | Associated Triple |
|---|
| Overlap of standards | Medium | Multiple standards have been developed to address this information and it is unclear which standard should be used to address this specific information flow. | (None) | MMVTA Transit Traveler Information=>broadcast traveler information=>MMVTA Remote Traveler Support |
|---|
| Overlap of standards | Medium | Multiple standards have been developed to address this information and it is unclear which standard should be used to address this specific information flow. | (None) | PRT Offices=>broadcast traveler information=>PRT Remote Traveler Support |
|---|
| Overlap of standards | Medium | Multiple standards have been developed to address this information and it is unclear which standard should be used to address this specific information flow. | (None) | PTC Offices=>broadcast traveler information=>PTC Service Plazas |
|---|
| Overlap of standards | Medium | Multiple standards have been developed to address this information and it is unclear which standard should be used to address this specific information flow. | (None) | Regional Travel Information System=>broadcast traveler information=>BCTA Remote Traveler Support |
|---|
| Overlap of standards | Medium | Multiple standards have been developed to address this information and it is unclear which standard should be used to address this specific information flow. | (None) | Regional Travel Information System=>broadcast traveler information=>PRT Remote Traveler Support |
|---|
| Overlap of standards | Medium | Multiple standards have been developed to address this information and it is unclear which standard should be used to address this specific information flow. | (None) | Regional Travel Information System=>broadcast traveler information=>PTC Service Plazas |
|---|
| Overlap of standards | Medium | Multiple standards have been developed to address this information and it is unclear which standard should be used to address this specific information flow. | (None) | PTC Traffic Operations Center (PTC Ops Center)=>broadcast traveler information=>PTC Service Plazas |
|---|
| Overlap of standards | Medium | Multiple standards have been developed to address this information and it is unclear which standard should be used to address this specific information flow. | (None) | PRT Transit Traveler Information=>broadcast traveler information=>PRT Remote Traveler Support |
|---|
| Overlap of standards | Medium | Multiple standards have been developed to address this information and it is unclear which standard should be used to address this specific information flow. | (None) | BCTA Transit Management Center=>broadcast traveler information=>BCTA Remote Traveler Support |
|---|
| 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) | PRT Offices=>broadcast traveler information=>PRT Remote Traveler Support |
|---|
| 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) | PTC Offices=>broadcast traveler information=>PTC Service Plazas |
|---|
| 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) | Regional Travel Information System=>broadcast traveler information=>BCTA Remote Traveler Support |
|---|
| 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) | Regional Travel Information System=>broadcast traveler information=>PRT Remote Traveler Support |
|---|
| 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) | Regional Travel Information System=>broadcast traveler information=>PTC Service Plazas |
|---|
| 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) | PTC Traffic Operations Center (PTC Ops Center)=>broadcast traveler information=>PTC Service Plazas |
|---|
| 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) | PRT Transit Traveler Information=>broadcast traveler information=>PRT Remote Traveler Support |
|---|
| 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) | MMVTA Transit Traveler Information=>broadcast traveler information=>MMVTA Remote Traveler Support |
|---|
| 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) | BCTA Transit Management Center=>broadcast traveler information=>BCTA Remote Traveler Support |
|---|
| Source | Destination | Flow |
|---|
| BCTA Transit Management Center | BCTA Remote Traveler Support | broadcast traveler information |
|---|
| MMVTA Transit Traveler Information | MMVTA Remote Traveler Support | broadcast traveler information |
|---|
| PRT Offices | PRT Remote Traveler Support | broadcast traveler information |
|---|
| PRT Transit Traveler Information | PRT Remote Traveler Support | broadcast traveler information |
|---|
| PTC Offices | PTC Service Plazas | broadcast traveler information |
|---|
| PTC Traffic Operations Center (PTC Ops Center) | PTC Service Plazas | broadcast traveler information |
|---|
| Regional Travel Information System | BCTA Remote Traveler Support | broadcast traveler information |
|---|
| Regional Travel Information System | PRT Remote Traveler Support | broadcast traveler information |
|---|
| Regional Travel Information System | PTC Service Plazas | broadcast traveler information |
|---|