US: SAE J3067 (J2735 SE) - Guaranteed Secure Wireless Internet (ITS)

Description:

This solution is used within the U.S.. It combines standards associated with US: SAE J3067 (J2735 SE) with those for I-M: Guaranteed Secure Wireless Internet (ITS). The US: SAE J3067 (J2735 SE) standards include a proposed solution for the upper-layers to implement V2X information flows that do not yet have fully standardized messages, functionality or performance characteristics. The I-M: Guaranteed Secure Wireless Internet (ITS) standards include lower-layer standards that support secure communications with guaranteed delivery 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.

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

Level	Doc #	Standard	Description
Access		Wireless Internet Alternatives (NA)	A set of alternative standards that supports any technology that allows a mobile device (e.g., a vehicle) to connect to the Internet (or an intranet) while stationary or moving within a limited area. For example, this would include both Wi-Fi and cellular technologies among others. NOTE: Use of the WAVE Subnet should be coupled with use of IEEE 1609.3 at the TransNet Layer.
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: SAE J3067 (J2735 SE)

Level	Doc #	Standard	Description
Facilities	SAE J2945	SAE J2945/0 DSRC Common Design Elements	This standard defines cross-cutting material which applies to the J2945/x series including generic DSRC interface requirements and guidance on Systems Engineering (SE) content.
ITS Application Entity	SAE J3067	SAE J3067 DSRC Prop Mods to 2735	This informational report formalized a deliverable received from the USDOT as suggested improvements to SAE J2735:2009. Many of these suggestions have been incorporated into later revisions of SAE J2735 and SAE J2945/x; additional suggestions may be incorporated as the documents are extended to address additional applications.

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.