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.
| 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 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. |
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.
| 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) |
| 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) | Westchester County Office of Emergency Management=>emergency transit service request=>Coach USA/Short Line Headquarters |
| 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) | WCDPWT Bee-Line Dispatch Facility=>emergency transit service response=>Westchester County Office of Emergency Management |
| 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) | UCAT Dispatch Facility=>emergency transit service response=>Ulster County Emergency Services Department |
| 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) | Ulster County Emergency Services Department=>emergency transit service request=>UCAT Dispatch Facility |
| 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) | Ulster County Emergency Services Department=>emergency transit service request=>Coach USA/Short Line Headquarters |
| 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) | Dutchess County Department of Emergency Response=>emergency transit service request=>City of Poughkeepsie DPW Dispatch Facility |
| 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) | Dutchess County Department of Emergency Response=>emergency transit service request=>Coach USA/Short Line Headquarters |
| 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) | Dutchess County Department of Emergency Response=>emergency transit service request=>Dutchess LOOP Transit Facility |
| 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) | City of Poughkeepsie DPW Dispatch Facility=>emergency transit service response=>Dutchess County Department of Emergency Response |
| 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) | RCOFES Emergency Management=>emergency transit service request=>Coach USA/Rockland Coaches Headquarters |
| 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) | Westchester County Office of Emergency Management=>emergency transit service request=>WCDPWT Bee-Line Dispatch Facility |
| 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) | Orange County Division of Emergency Management=>emergency transit service request=>Coach USA/Short Line Headquarters |
| 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) | Putnam County Bureau of Emergency Services=>emergency transit service request=>PCPDPT Transit Dispatch 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) | Coach USA/Rockland Coaches Headquarters=>emergency transit service response=>RCOFES Emergency Management |
| 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) | Coach USA/Short Line Headquarters=>emergency transit service response=>Ulster County Emergency Services Department |
| 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) | Coach USA/Short Line Headquarters=>emergency transit service response=>Dutchess County Department of Emergency Response |
| 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) | Coach USA/Short Line Headquarters=>emergency transit service response=>Westchester County Office of Emergency Management |
| 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) | Coach USA/Short Line Headquarters=>emergency transit service response=>Orange County Division of Emergency Management |
| 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) | Dutchess LOOP Transit Facility=>emergency transit service response=>Dutchess County Department of Emergency Response |
| 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) | RCDPT Operations and Maintenance Facility=>emergency transit service response=>RCOFES Emergency Management |
| 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) | PCPDPT Transit Dispatch Center=>emergency transit service response=>Putnam County Bureau of Emergency Services |
| 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) | RCOFES Emergency Management=>emergency transit service request=>RCDPT Operations and Maintenance Facility |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
| City of Poughkeepsie DPW Dispatch Facility | Dutchess County Department of Emergency Response | emergency transit service response |
| Coach USA/Rockland Coaches Headquarters | RCOFES Emergency Management | emergency transit service response |
| Coach USA/Short Line Headquarters | Dutchess County Department of Emergency Response | emergency transit service response |
| Coach USA/Short Line Headquarters | Orange County Division of Emergency Management | emergency transit service response |
| Coach USA/Short Line Headquarters | Ulster County Emergency Services Department | emergency transit service response |
| Coach USA/Short Line Headquarters | Westchester County Office of Emergency Management | emergency transit service response |
| Dutchess County Department of Emergency Response | City of Poughkeepsie DPW Dispatch Facility | emergency transit service request |
| Dutchess County Department of Emergency Response | Coach USA/Short Line Headquarters | emergency transit service request |
| Dutchess County Department of Emergency Response | Dutchess LOOP Transit Facility | emergency transit service request |
| Dutchess LOOP Transit Facility | Dutchess County Department of Emergency Response | emergency transit service response |
| Orange County Division of Emergency Management | Coach USA/Short Line Headquarters | emergency transit service request |
| PCPDPT Transit Dispatch Center | Putnam County Bureau of Emergency Services | emergency transit service response |
| Putnam County Bureau of Emergency Services | PCPDPT Transit Dispatch Center | emergency transit service request |
| RCDPT Operations and Maintenance Facility | RCOFES Emergency Management | emergency transit service response |
| RCOFES Emergency Management | Coach USA/Rockland Coaches Headquarters | emergency transit service request |
| RCOFES Emergency Management | RCDPT Operations and Maintenance Facility | emergency transit service request |
| UCAT Dispatch Facility | Ulster County Emergency Services Department | emergency transit service response |
| Ulster County Emergency Services Department | Coach USA/Short Line Headquarters | emergency transit service request |
| Ulster County Emergency Services Department | UCAT Dispatch Facility | emergency transit service request |
| WCDPWT Bee-Line Dispatch Facility | Westchester County Office of Emergency Management | emergency transit service response |
| Westchester County Office of Emergency Management | Coach USA/Short Line Headquarters | emergency transit service request |
| Westchester County Office of Emergency Management | WCDPWT Bee-Line Dispatch Facility | emergency transit service request |
All rights reserved. © 2020 New York State Department of Transportation