This solution is used within Canada and the U.S.. It combines standards associated with US: TMDD with those for C–C: NTCIP Messaging. The US: TMDD standards include upper–layer standards required to implement center–to–center communications with traffic management systems. The C–C: NTCIP Messaging standards include lower–layer standards that support partially secure communications between two centers as commonly used in the US.
| 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 | W3C WSDL 1.1 | Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.1 | This standard defines the mechanism for a system to describe the web services that it supports. |
|---|
| Security | IETF RFC 5280 | Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile | This standard (RFC) defines how to use X.509 certificates for secure communications over the Internet. |
|---|
| Security | IETF RFC 8446 | The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol | This standard (RFC) specifies Version 1.3 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. The TLS protocol provides communications security over the Internet. The protocol allows client/server applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery. |
|---|
| ITS Application Entity | ITE TMDD Vol 2 | Traffic Management Data Dictionary Standard for the Center–to–Center Communications: Volume 2: Design Content | This standard defines the messages and data elements for the external center to traffic management center interface. |
|---|
| Facilities | ITE TMDD Vol 2 | Traffic Management Data Dictionary Standard for the Center–to–Center Communications: Volume 2: Design Content | This standard defines the messages and data elements for the external center to traffic management center interface. |
|---|
| Facilities | 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 | 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 | W3C SOAP 1.2 | SOAP Version 1.2 | This standard defines the structure that can be used to send message–based information between systems using XML. |
|---|
| Facilities | W3C XML | Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth Edition) | This standard defines a generic markup language that can be used to share customizable information by using start and stop tags within the text. |
|---|
| 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 8200 | Internet Protocol, Version 6 | This document specifies version 6 of the Internet Protocol (IPv6). |
|---|
| TransNet | IETF RFC 9293 | Transmission Control Protocol | 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. |
|---|
| Access | | Internet Subnet Alternatives | A set of alternative standards that includes any Subnet Layer method of connecting to the Internet. |
|---|
Multiple significant and 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. Some solutions in this category may also be becoming obsolete from an interoperability perspective and if this is the case, then upgrades should be planned as soon as possible. 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.
| Issue | Severity | Description | Associated Standard | Associated Triple |
|---|
| Data not fully defined (medium) | Medium | Some of the data elements for this information flow are not fully defined. | (None) | State Radio=>incident information=>NDDOT District Office |
|---|
| 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. | (None) | (All) |
|---|
| Outdated security reference | Medium | The standard solution includes an outdated security reference. | (None) | (All) |
|---|
| Overlap of standards | Medium | Multiple standards have been developed to address this information and it is unclear which standard should be used to address this specific information flow. | (None) | Bismarck Centracs Server=>incident information=>Central Dakota Communications Center |
|---|
| Overlap of standards | Medium | Multiple standards have been developed to address this information and it is unclear which standard should be used to address this specific information flow. | (None) | Bismarck Centracs Server=>incident information=>Bis–Man Transit Center |
|---|
| Performance not fully defined (medium) | Medium | The performance rules are not fully defined for this information flow. | (None) | (All) |
|---|
| Secure data access not provided | Medium | The solution does not define rules on how the application entity authenticates requests to accept or provide data. | (None) | (All) |
|---|
| Accuracy of data | Low | The standard is missing accuracy requirements for some of its data, which may result in anomalous behavior. | (None) | Bismarck Centracs Server=>road network conditions=>Central Dakota Communications Center |
|---|
| Accuracy of data | Low | The standard is missing accuracy requirements for some of its data, which may result in anomalous behavior. | (None) | Bismarck Centracs Server=>road network conditions=>Bis–Man Transit Center |
|---|
| Inadequate guidance for complex data design | Low | The standard provides a robust design, but there may be more than one way to convey the information contained in this information flow and the standard provides little or no guidance on how to use the defined structures. | (None) | (All) |
|---|