US: TCIP - Secure Wireless Internet (ITS)
Description:
This solution is used within Canada and the U.S.. It combines standards associated with US: TCIP with those for I-M: Secure Wireless Internet (ITS). The US: TCIP standards include upper-layer standards required to implement 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.Relevant Regions:
- Canada
- United States
Comm Profile: I-M: Secure Wireless Internet (ITS)
Comm Class: WAN - Wide Area Network
Standards in Profile:
| Level | Standard |
|---|---|
| Access | Wireless Internet Alternatives (NA) |
| Mgmt | Bundle: SNMPv3 MIB |
| Security | Secure Session Alternatives |
| TransNet | Internet Transport Alternatives |
| TransNet | IP Alternatives |
Data Profile: US: TCIP
Standards in Profile:
| Level | Standard |
|---|---|
| Facilities | Encoding Alternatives |
| Facilities | TCIP - Data |
| ITS Application Entity | TCIP - Data |
Solution Issues Severity: 18
The severity issue score calculation only includes issues associated with standards that are included by default.
Solution Issues:
| Default | Severity | Name | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| True | Low | Data not defined in standard format | ITS Info Gap | The definition of data concepts should conform to ISO 14817-1 to promote reuse among ITS. |
| True | Medium | Out of date (medium) | Standardization Gap | The standard includes normative references to other standards that have been subject to significant changes that can impact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. |
| True | Medium | Outdated security reference | Security Gap | The standard solution includes an outdated security reference. |
| True | Medium | Secure data access not provided | Security Gap | The solution does not define rules on how the application entity authenticates requests to accept or provide data. |
| True | High | Encoding rules not defined | Facility Layer Gap | The standards do not unambiguously define which set of encoding rules to use. |
| False | Medium | Option not standardized | Standardization Gap | The option set includes at least one option that is not (yet) defined in a standard. |
| False | Medium | Overlap of standards | Overlap | Multiple standards have been developed to address this information and it is unclear which standard should be used to address this specific information flow. |
| False | Medium | Regulatory Permission Needed | Standardization Gap | Deployment of this standard requires regulatory approval, which is currently subject to significant delays. |
| False | Medium | Uncertainty about trust revocation mechanism | Security Gap | The mechanisms used to prevent bad actors from sending authorized messages is unproven. |
| False | High | Regulatory Issue | Standardization Gap | Deployment of this standard is subject to regulatory approval, which is not currently expected to be granted for deployments in the near-term. |
Solution to Triples
This solution is used on the following information flow triples: