US: SAE Lane-Level Mapping - Secure Wireless Internet (ITS)

Description:

This solution is used within the U.S.. It combines standards associated with US: SAE Lane-Level Mapping with those for I-M: Secure Wireless Internet (ITS). The US: SAE Lane-Level Mapping standards include upper-layer standards required to implement lane-level and road furniture mapping information flows. 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.

Comm Profile: I-M: 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		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: SAE Lane-Level Mapping

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.
Facilities	SAE J2945/A	SAE J2945/A Lane-Level & Road Furniture Mapping	The document provides a generalized mapping solution that can be applied to future infrastructure-based application standards using a layering approach, so that each new application standard at most needs to define a new layer of information that is unique to specific V2X application. It provides an ability to describe small, lane-level map descriptions that apply directly to V2X applications such as reduced speed zones (e.g. work zones) and curves (e.g. curve speed warning).
ITS Application Entity	SAE J2735	SAE J2735 DSRC Message Set	This standard defines the data and messages for use in DSRC (i.e., V2V, V2I, and V2D) applications. The SAE J2945 series defines additional requirements on how to use these messages.
ITS Application Entity	SAE J2945/A	SAE J2945/A Lane-Level & Road Furniture Mapping	The document provides a generalized mapping solution that can be applied to future infrastructure-based application standards using a layering approach, so that each new application standard at most needs to define a new layer of information that is unique to specific V2X application. It provides an ability to describe small, lane-level map descriptions that apply directly to V2X applications such as reduced speed zones (e.g. work zones) and curves (e.g. curve speed warning).

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.