This solution is used within Canada and 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 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 8200 | Internet Protocol, Version 6 | This document specifies version 6 of the Internet Protocol (IPv6). |
|---|
| TransNet | IETF RFC 9293 | Transmission Control Protocol | 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. |
|---|
| Access | | Internet Subnet Alternatives | A set of alternative standards that includes any Subnet Layer method of connecting to the Internet. |
|---|
One serious or several significant issues. This category often includes proprietary or partial solutions. The communications solution may fail to provide even a base level of interoperability and security. Consider alternative solutions, or define specific revisions or upgrades that would provide a level of interoperability or security that are needed for the deployment.
| 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) |
|---|
| Outdated security reference | Medium | The standard solution includes an outdated security reference. | (None) | (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) | Sedgwick County Transportation Brokerage System=>emergency transit service response=>Sedgwick County 911 |
|---|
| 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) | Suburban Emergency Dispatch Centers=>emergency transit service request=>Wichita Transit Operations 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) | Sedgwick County 911=>emergency transit service request=>Sedgwick County Transportation Brokerage System |
|---|
| 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) | Sedgwick County 911=>emergency transit service request=>Wichita Transit Operations 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) | Kansas Turnpike Authority Center=>emergency transit service request=>Wichita Transit Operations 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) | Kansas Highway Patrol Dispatch=>emergency transit service request=>Wichita Transit Operations 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) | Wichita Transit Operations Center=>emergency transit service response=>Suburban Emergency Dispatch Centers |
|---|
| 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) | Wichita Transit Operations Center=>emergency transit service response=>Sedgwick County 911 |
|---|
| 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) | Wichita Transit Operations Center=>emergency transit service response=>Kansas Turnpike Authority 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) | Wichita Transit Operations Center=>emergency transit service response=>Kansas Highway Patrol Dispatch |
|---|
| 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 |
|---|
| Kansas Highway Patrol Dispatch | Wichita Transit Operations Center | emergency transit service request |
|---|
| Kansas Turnpike Authority Center | Wichita Transit Operations Center | emergency transit service request |
|---|
| Sedgwick County 911 | Sedgwick County Transportation Brokerage System | emergency transit service request |
|---|
| Sedgwick County 911 | Wichita Transit Operations Center | emergency transit service request |
|---|
| Sedgwick County Transportation Brokerage System | Sedgwick County 911 | emergency transit service response |
|---|
| Suburban Emergency Dispatch Centers | Wichita Transit Operations Center | emergency transit service request |
|---|
| Wichita Transit Operations Center | Kansas Highway Patrol Dispatch | emergency transit service response |
|---|
| Wichita Transit Operations Center | Kansas Turnpike Authority Center | emergency transit service response |
|---|
| Wichita Transit Operations Center | Sedgwick County 911 | emergency transit service response |
|---|
| Wichita Transit Operations Center | Suburban Emergency Dispatch Centers | emergency transit service response |
|---|