"The full text of a second draft resolution on Iraq to be put to the United Nations Security Council later on Monday by the United States and Britain" - that was how the link I gave put it. And that's how it's generally being referred to, in virtue of the fact that the previous resolution was generally referred to as "the first resolution" - which of course it wasn't; but then the First World War wasn't really the First World War arguably either, the point is to stick a label on which identifies what is being talked about, rather than getting that label strcitly correct.

But however you count them, neither of those resolutions make any mention whatsoever of the use of military force, or of going to war. (The idea presumably being that the countries which reluctantly line up to vote for it can say they never voted for a war, if the war goes pear-shaped, or the people back home start objecting too strenuously.) But the pro-war press and media can be guaranteed to claim that the resolutions do authorise war, regardless of what they actually say.