This solution is used within the U.S.. It combines standards associated with US: NTCIP Warning Device with those for I–M: Wireless SNMPv3/TLS. The US: NTCIP Warning Device standards include a composite of upper–layer standards that support monitoring for unsafe traffic activities and displaying warning to drivers. The I–M: Wireless SNMPv3/TLS standards include lower–layer standards that support secure infrastructure–to–mobile communications using simple network management protocol (SNMPv3).
| 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. |
|---|
| Mgmt | NTCIP 1201 | NTCIP Global Object (GO) Definitions | This standard defines SNMP objects (data elements) used by a wide range of field devices like time and versioning information. |
|---|
| Security | IETF RFC 6353 | Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) | This standard (RFC) defines how to use the TLS authentication service to provide authentication within the access control mechanism of SNMP. |
|---|
| ITS Application Entity | NTCIP 1209 | NTCIP Object Definitions for Transportation Sensor Systems (TSS) | This standard defines SNMP objects (data elements) to monitor and control transportation system sensors that measure real–time vehicular traffic information. |
|---|
| ITS Application Entity | NTCIP 1205 | NTCIP Objects for CCTV Camera Control | This standard defines SNMP objects (data elements) for control and monitoring of closed–circuit television (CCTV) camera controllers. |
|---|
| ITS Application Entity | NTCIP 1203 | NTCIP Object Definitions for Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) | This standard defines SNMP objects (data elements) for monitoring and controlling dynamic message signs (such as variable message signs). |
|---|
| Facilities | 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. |
|---|
| Facilities | 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. |
|---|
| Facilities | 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. |
|---|
| Facilities | 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. |
|---|
| Facilities | 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. |
|---|
| Facilities | 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. |
|---|
| Facilities | NTCIP 1209 | NTCIP Object Definitions for Transportation Sensor Systems (TSS) | This standard defines SNMP objects (data elements) to monitor and control transportation system sensors that measure real–time vehicular traffic information. |
|---|
| Facilities | NTCIP 1205 | NTCIP Objects for CCTV Camera Control | This standard defines SNMP objects (data elements) for control and monitoring of closed–circuit television (CCTV) camera controllers. |
|---|
| Facilities | NTCIP 1203 | NTCIP Object Definitions for Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) | This standard defines SNMP objects (data elements) for monitoring and controlling dynamic message signs (such as variable message signs). |
|---|
| 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 | 3GPP Network | 3GPP Cellular Communications Network | This proxy standard represents a variety of 3GPP releases and underlying standards and technologies that rely upon cellular base stations for connectivity, including 3G, 4G, and the emerging 5G technologies. |
|---|
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.
| Issue | Severity | Description | Associated Standard | Associated Triple |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (critical) | High | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design details may not meet performance or other requirements because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | ODOT District 4 Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>ODOT District 4 Office |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (critical) | High | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design details may not meet performance or other requirements because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | ODOT District 4 Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>ODOT District 4 Maintenance Garages |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (critical) | High | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design details may not meet performance or other requirements because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | OTIC Maintenance and Construction Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>OTIC Maintenance Dispatch Offices |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (critical) | High | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design details may not meet performance or other requirements because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | Other Municipalities Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>Other Municipalities Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (critical) | High | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design details may not meet performance or other requirements because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | Summit County Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>Summit County Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (critical) | High | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design details may not meet performance or other requirements because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | City of Stow Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>City of Stow Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (critical) | High | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design details may not meet performance or other requirements because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | City of Kent Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>City of Kent Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (critical) | High | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design details may not meet performance or other requirements because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | City of Green Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>Summit County Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (critical) | High | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design details may not meet performance or other requirements because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | City of Green Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>City of Green Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (critical) | High | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design details may not meet performance or other requirements because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | City of Akron Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>City of Akron Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (critical) | High | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design details may not meet performance or other requirements because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | Portage County Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>Portage County Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (critical) | High | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design details may not meet performance or other requirements because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | City of Hudson Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>City of Hudson Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (critical) | High | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design details may not meet performance or other requirements because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | City of Twinsburg Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>City of Twinsburg Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (critical) | High | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design details may not meet performance or other requirements because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | City of Barberton Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>Summit County Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (critical) | High | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design details may not meet performance or other requirements because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | City of Barberton Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>City of Twinsburg Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (critical) | High | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design details may not meet performance or other requirements because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | City of Barberton Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>City of Barberton Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Use case not considered in design (critical) | High | While the indicated standards nominally address the information flow, the design details may not meet performance or other requirements because this particular use case was not the focus of the design effort. | (None) | City of Cuyahoga Falls Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>City of Cuyahoga Falls Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | ODOT District 4 Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>ODOT District 4 Maintenance Garages |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | City of Green Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>Summit County Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | City of Kent Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>City of Kent Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | City of Stow Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>City of Stow Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | Summit County Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>Summit County Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | Other Municipalities Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>Other Municipalities Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | City of Green Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>City of Green Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | ODOT District 4 Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>ODOT District 4 Office |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | City of Twinsburg Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>City of Twinsburg Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | OTIC Maintenance and Construction Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>OTIC Maintenance Dispatch Offices |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | City of Cuyahoga Falls Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>City of Cuyahoga Falls Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | City of Akron Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>City of Akron Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | City of Barberton Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>City of Barberton Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | City of Hudson Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>City of Hudson Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | City of Barberton Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>Summit County Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | City of Barberton Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>City of Twinsburg Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | Portage County Maintenance Vehicles=>work zone warning status=>Portage County Maintenance Dispatch |
|---|
| 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. | IETF RFC 6353 TLS for SNMP | (All) |
|---|
| Update data to SNMPv3 | Low | Data has been defined for SNMPv1, but needs to be updated to SNMPv3 format. | (None) | (All) |
|---|
| Use TLS for SNMP Option | Low | The standard allows for multiple security mechanisms. The only defined mechanism that meets the requirements for C–ITS is the one based on TLS. | (None) | (All) |
|---|