Field --> Center:
field equipment status

Definition
Included In
Communication Solutions
Characteristics
Security

Definitions

field equipment status (Information Flow): Reports from field equipment (sensors, signals, signs, controllers, etc.) which indicate current operational status.

Field (Source Physical Object): This general physical object is used to model core capabilities that are common to any piece of field equipment.

Center (Destination Physical Object): This general physical object is used to model core capabilities that are common to any center.

Included In

This Triple is in the following Service Packages:

SU11: Field Equipment Maintenance

This triple is associated with the following Functional Objects:

This Triple is described by the following Functional View Data Flows:

This Triple has the following triple relationships:

None

Communication Solutions

US: NTCIP Generic Device - SNMPv3/TLS (5)
US: NTCIP Generic Device - SNMPv1/TLS (6)
(None-Data) - Secure Internet (ITS) (32)
US: NTCIP Generic Device - SNMPv1 (32)

Solutions are sorted in ascending Gap Severity order. The Gap Severity is the parenthetical number at the end of the solution.

Selected Solution

US: NTCIP Generic Device - SNMPv1/TLS

Solution Description

This solution is used within the U.S.. It combines standards associated with US: NTCIP Generic Device with those for I-F: SNMPv1/TLS. The US: NTCIP Generic Device standards include upper-layer standards required to implement center-to-field communications for any device functionality. The I-F: SNMPv1/TLS standards include lower-layer standards that define one way to retrofit basic security into SNMPv1 implementations (mainly in the US); however, this only secures the communications link and does not provide end-application security and is not recommended for new deployments.

ITS Application Entity NTCIP Field Device Alternatives			Click gap icons for more info.
Mgmt NTCIP 1201 Bundle: SNMPv1 MIB	Facilities NTCIP Field Device Alternatives NTCIP 2301	Security IETF RFC 8446
	TransNet IP Alternatives IETF RFC 9293
	Access Field SubNet Alternatives

Note that some layers might have alternatives, in which case all of the gap icons associated with every alternative may be shown on the diagram, but the solution severity calculations (and resulting ordering of solutions) includes only the issues associated with the default (i.e., best, least severe) alternative.

Characteristics

Characteristic	Value
Time Context	Recent
Spatial Context	Regional
Acknowledgement	True
Cardinality	Unicast
Initiator	Destination
Authenticable	True
Encrypt	True

Interoperability	Description
Local	In cases where an interface is normally encapsulated by a single stakeholder, interoperability is still desirable, but the motive is vendor independence and the efficiencies and choices that an open standards-based interface provides.

Security

Information Flow Security
	Confidentiality	Integrity	Availability
Rating	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate
Basis	The operational state of field devices, if known to an attacker or individual with criminal intent, could be used to facilitate the commission of a crime. Individual devices may be more or less important in this context; for example knowing whether a security camera is operating is probably more relevant to the criminal than knowing if the DMS is operating, though the latter could still be useful info. Instances of this flow that are local minimize this risk however, so for these local flows Confidentiality is considered LOW.	If incorrect or changed, could lead to inappropriate maintenance activity, which has a significant cost in itself and contributes negatively to system operational status.	This must be timely to support operational uptime requirements. Lack of monitoring will lead to less uptime, which will impact security, mobility and in some cases, safety.

Security Characteristics	Value
Authenticable	True
Encrypt	True

Field --> Center:field equipment status