Re: [Teas] 答复: Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG documents

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Young,

On 9/22/2015 1:32 PM, Leeyoung wrote:
> But not with the procedural violation! This would set a wrong
> precedent in IETF. I’d like to hold all of us accountable to the right
> procedure. 

I'm not sure to what you are referring.  The sole formal procedural
requirement for issuing a draft is WG chair approval, at which time
chairs select the filename.  Now it is certainly normal and good
practice for  WG chairs to ensure support for the work via such things
as polls, but this isn't procedurally required.  Also, chairs always
evaluate the filename as part of our approval process, and while less
common,  approve file names different than the form used by the
individual draft.  Feel free to look around and you'll find a few examples.

Now we'd really like to move the discussion to something a bit more than
process and get a definition for inclusion in the -01 rev of the
document.  -- which in our opinion will formally answer the question of
if ACTN is just a (set of) solutions or something broader, and thereby
inform the filename choice.

Can you and the other authors help with that? 

This question is open to all, so if you think you have a definition
that's worth sharing, please chime in.

Thanks,
Lou