US: GTFS static - Secure Internet (ITS)

Description:

This solution is used within the U.S.. It combines standards associated with US: GTFS static with those for I-I: Secure Internet (ITS). The US: GTFS static standards include upper-layer standards required to implement static, public, transit-related communications. 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.

Comm Profile: I-I: Secure Internet (ITS)

Level	Doc #	Standard	Description
Access		Internet Subnet Alternatives	A set of alternative standards that includes any Subnet Layer method of connecting to the Internet.
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		Internet Transport Alternatives	A set of alternative standards that identifies the two major options for the transport layer for mainstream IP-based deployments.
TransNet		IP Alternatives	A set of alternative standards that allows for the selection of IPv4 or IPv6.

Data Profile: US: GTFS static

Level	Doc #	Standard	Description
Facilities	IETF RFC 4180	IETF RFC 4180 CSV Files	This standard (RFC) documents the format used for Comma-Separated Values (CSV) files and registers the associated MIME type "text/csv".
Facilities	IETF RFC 7159	IETF RFC 7159 JSON	The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON), a lightweight, text-based, language-independent data interchange format. It was derived from the ECMAScript Programming Language Standard. JSON defines a small set of formatting rules for the portable representation of structured data. This document removes inconsistencies with other specifications of JSON, repairs specification errors, and offers experience-based interoperability guidance.
Facilities	IETF RFC 9110	IETF RFC 9110 HTTP Semantics	The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a stateless application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypertext information systems. This document describes the overall architecture of HTTP, establishes common terminology, and defines aspects of the protocol that are shared by all versions. In this definition are core protocol elements, extensibility mechanisms, and the "http" and "https" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) schemes.
Facilities	IETF RFC 9112	IETF RFC 9112 HTTP/1.1	The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a stateless application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypertext information systems. This document specifies the HTTP/1.1 message syntax, message parsing, connection management, and related security concerns.
Facilities	ISO 21320-1	ISO 21320-1 ZIP	ISO/IEC 21320-1 specifies the core requirements for 1) document container files, and 2) implementations that produce and/or consume document container files. It normatively references the Zip File Format Specification version 6.3.3 of PKWARE(R) Inc. Document container files are conforming Zip files as specified by that document.
ITS Application Entity	GTFS	General Transit Feed Specification	This document defines a common (open data) format for exchanging public transportation schedules and associated geographic information.

Readiness Description:

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.