[Teas] WG adoption and draft naming process (Re: 答复: Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG documents)

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

NOTE:I've changed the title so that we can keep separate process
discussion from the definition discussion.  Please keep comments limited
to the appropriate thread so folks (like Adrian) that don't care about
the process can ignore it.

<This is the process thread>

On 9/23/2015 1:21 PM, Leeyoung wrote:
> Hi Lou and Pavan, 
>
> OK, I think we are converging. I personally have not seen any cases where WG chairs demanded the name change of the adopted work, but this may have been limited to my own experience. 

Yes. It must be.  Perhaps because (a) it isn't an every day occurrence, 
and (b)  I've never seen a set of authors balk to this level on a name
change -- in fact I can't recall *ever* seeing authors protest a change
by a chair.

For examples, take a look at the replaced by section of
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/

Another good example is draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path which was
replaced by
draft-ospf-te-metric-extensions 

If you/anyone else has questions about WG draft adoption process --
please ask them by replying to this thread.  It seems that there a more
than a few confused on this.

> ...

WRT the draft filename:

To me the definition still reads as ACTN is a set of solutions (i.e., =
"new methods and capabilities to support virtual network operations") . 
While this understanding lead us to name the requirements draft
independently from the solution in an attempt to highlight why the
requirements don't apply to existing work, perhaps it would be fine to
tie the two directly together -- I'll talk off line with Pavan.
Either way, vn-orchestration or vn-operation would be/have been a better
choice than vn-controller.

Lou