Introduction
This document provides direction for authors of standards, so that the standards are effectively communicated to NIH stakeholders. It is incumbent upon all authors to write standards effectively not only to streamline the standards process, as described in NIHRFC0001, the NIH Architecture Standards Process, but also to ensure the standard can be effectively implemented.
The Role of the NIHRFC Editor
The NIH Request for Comments (NIHRFC) Editor is responsible for ensuring the quality of documents prior to a formal review by the NIH and its governing bodies. However, authors retain ultimate responsibility for effectively communicating a proposed standard. Furthermore, authors are responsible for making changes to the documents and resubmitting to the NIHRFC Editor in cases where editorial or substantive changes are required.
Changing Standards Content and Document Ownership
Because the content of a standard may change over time as NIH gains experience with a standard, authors of change also have a significant role to play in updating a standard effectively. Furthermore, authoring a standard does not denote ownership of a standard. Because proposed standards and approved NIH standards are the intellectual property of NIH they may be changed at any time through the Architecture Standards Process.
Plain Language
Authors must apply the principles of Plain Language when submitting standards documents for review and approval to ensure the standards are communicated effectively. For guidance on using Plain Language, visit the NIH Office of the Director (OD) website at http://execsec.od.nih.gov/plainlang/index.html.
Internal Organizational Reviews
Authors must submit proposed standards to their organizations and management using their internal organizational standard operating procedures (SOP) and regulations prior to submission to the Office of the Chief Information Technology Architecture (OCITA) in the event the organization requires such a review. OCITA will not submit documents to an IC for review on the behalf of an author.
“Should” versus “Shall”
Authors must be cognizant of “to-be” verbs in standards documents. Specifically the terms shall, must, and will denote mandatory requirements for the effective implementation of a standard. The terms may, should, and would denote optional requirements for implementation. Authors must follow this convention when drafting standards documents. Furthermore, documents that contain primarily non-mandatory “to-be” verbs may not be accepted as standards at all but may be relegated to the informational category of documents.
What goes in a standard?
A standards document should include declarative statements that describe the standard and its attributes. Such statements may include background information, parameters, variables, interface requirements, assumptions, constraints, dependencies, and preconditions for implementing the standard.
Generally speaking a standards document should not include unresolved questions, disputes, opinions, commentary, decision-analysis and justification, or process requirements and dependencies.
Recognizing that decision-analysis and justification are important considerations for approving a standard, this information should be extracted into a document supplement. Content that describe a process or approach may be extracted into a best community practice or an informational NIHRFC, depending on the specific purpose of this content. Authors should seek specific guidance from OCITA in these cases.
Authors must use the NIHRFC Template (NIHRFC0009) when submitting standards, best community practices, or other NIHRFCs.
Dependencies between Standards
If a proposed standard references and depends on another standard, then the referenced standard must be approved prior to the referencing standard being approved. References to draft standards that imply or infer their approval is not acceptable.
This process ensures that the referenced document will be available to the general public during the referencing document’s approval process. It also ensures that the preconditions for implementing the standard are in place for a successful implementation.
There may be rare cases in which multiple standards documents are routed through the approval process together. However, in these cases the authors must notify the NIHRFC Editor of the dependencies and must ensure that the documents are approved together.
Non-Standard Documentation
Authors who wish to publish ideas, recommendations, or implementations should consider other tracks for architecture documents in the NIHRFC series. These include best community practices and informational NIHRFCs. NIHRFC0001, the NIH Architecture Standards Process, describes the purpose and administration of these documents in detail.
