Process Instructions to Request a change to an Existing NTB document or Propose a New NTB Document
- Defect: an NITFS document, function, or process that is wrong or lacking in clear guidance in NITFS documentation which would mislead an implementer with respect to the standards requirements.
- Existing NTB Document Process Improvement: An update or addition to an existing NTB document, or document part, such as a volume, annex or appendix currently published and available on the NSG NTB Registry (https://nsgreg.nga.mil/ntb.jsp) which extends the capabilities or functional options previously documented.
- A new NTB Document Request: An addition of a new document, or document part, such as a volume, annex or appendix which is not published on the NSG Registry and is not currently recommended for publication by the NTB for enhancement and understanding.
If you have identified a defect in any of the NITFS documents and would like to request a change to correct the defect or would like to request a new document or extension of guidance in an existing document, using the "NTB Submission Forms" from the Document Submission Process Page download for filling out and submission to the NTB at email@example.com.
At any time in the review and preparation process that you have questions or concerns please contact the NTB at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Review the "Submission Request Forms" documentation linked in Step 1 for understanding, as well included are examples for a Document Defect, a Process Improvement and a New Document submission.
Fill out the blank RFC-NTB form based on the appropriate example.
Once the documentation is filled out, submit your proposed request for change to the NTB at email@example.com
For document defects, the NTB will review the submitted proposal for change. If the request is deemed a minor administrative/editorial change such as typographic errors, it will be added to the NTB list of minor issues to be resolved in a future document update, an RFC number will not be assigned, and the submitter will be notified of the decision. If the defect is determined to be a moderate or major concern, the NTB will assign an RFC control number, notify the submitter that the proposed RFC has been accepted for a tracked work item, and proceed to coordinate with the submitter to prepare document updates to be briefed as part of the next NTB Meeting and 45-day review process.
For document improvements of a new or existing document, the NTB will review the submitted proposal for change to ensure that it is relevant and is not duplicating another effort. If the change proposal is accepted, the NTB will assign an RFC control number to the action and notify the submitter of acceptance for further coordination in preparation for the next NTB Meeting and 45-day review process.
The NTB will contact submitters of RFC proposals about the status of their request. For accepted RFCs assigned an RFC control number, the NTB will provide submitters/authors with schedule milestones for NTB meeting presentations, NTB reviews, and review adjudications.
Prior to providing the completed RFC submissions to NTB members, the NTB will add the time to the agenda and set time aside at the next NTB Meeting for a presentation of the submitted RFC.
For RFC defect submissions the NTB Staff works with the submitter to prepare a presentation to the NTB membership for their understanding, discussion, and comment on each submission.
For RFC submissions of new or existing documents, the submitter develops a presentation of the request and presents it to the NTB membership for their understanding, discussion, and comment on each submission.
After the NTB Meeting the NTB staff will distribute all RFC submissions to NTB Members for a 45-day review.
There are two types of NTB member reviews conducted for RFCs after each meeting. The NTB will work with the RFC submitter to determine which type of review is appropriate. Please be aware that a document intended for Review for Approval can be changed to Technical Review based on the discussion and recommendations of the NTB members at the NTB Meeting.
- Technical Reviews: Typically intended for draft updates to solicit community feedback on the desired solutions and to promote community awareness. These are considered a preliminary review. Comments received during these reviews are informative to the functional intention of the solution.
- Reviews for Approval: When an RFC solution is mature, it is provided to the community to review for comment and recommendation for approval as a GEOINT community standard or guidance document. Comments received from this type of review typically clarify the communication of the RFC solution ensuring a robust guidance or standards document.
For each RFC submission, a Comment Review Matrix (CRM) form will be provided by the NTB Staff to members wishing to review and comment on the proposed RFC. The CRM will allow members to record each comment they have to the proposed RFC, see the CRM form under "Additional Documentation" found on Document Submission Processes page
. The completed CRMs by NTB members will be returned to both the NTB Staff and the submitter of the proposed RFC by the end of the 45-day review period.
At the conclusion of a review period, each RFC submitter reviews all associated CRMs received and “Adjudicates” each comment. Once all comments are “Adjudicated” the RFC submitter returns the CRMs to each individual that provided Critical or Substantive comment(s) for their review by either accepting the “Adjudication” or providing further comment as to why they believe the “Adjudicated” action was not correct. All comments are required to be adjudicated. I.e., Each comment needs to have a stated decision (Accepted, Partially Accepted, Rejected, or Information) and a reason or description of any changes made based on the comment. However, only the adjudication of Critical and Substantive comments needs to be communicated to the commentor. At this point, if the RFC submitter and the commenter have not reached an agreement, the NTB will setup a Technical Exchange Meeting (TEM) for all interested parties to develop a successful resolution.
Note: If after one or more TEMs, differences between the RFC author and commenter(s) still exist, the NTB Chairperson may call an additional TEM, for both sides of the debate to make a final presentation and then have the NTB Members, participating in the TEM, vote on either accepting or rejecting the RFC. The NTB Chair will make the final decision on any RFCs that cannot be decided by the TEM.
If the RFC adjudications are in response to a Technical Review, the submitter will return to Step 5 to schedule a presentation of the revised RFC solution at the next NTB Meeting and advance the RFC to Review for Approval.
Once Step 7 is completed for an RFC undergoing Review for Approval, and all comments have been successfully “Adjudicated”, each RFC submitter provides an updated word document with “redlines” and a consolidated CRM showing all comments along with the fully “Adjudicated” action for each comment. Return the documents to the NTB at firstname.lastname@example.org for finalization. If the number of changes in the document are such that most of the document has redlines, discuss with the NTB if a redline file is required. At this time the RFC is determined to be accepted by the NTB Chair, and NTB membership, and the updated document will be posted to the NSG NTB Standards Registry.
Note: Documents that are expected to be posted to the DoD IT Standards Registry (DISR) will need to be approved by the Geospatial Intelligence (GEOINT) Standards Working Group (GWG) once they are approved by the NTB.