--On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 14:54 -0500 Warren Kumari <warren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Sean Turner <sean@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> Note the PSA: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/p9sQ_srqEaA-gYBAP1I >> wib6P1fE >> > > Ugh. I'm sympathetic to wanting the have the numbers in sync, > but I really think it would have been polite to include a note > in versions 04-21 explaining what is happening. The current > Appendix A. History would have been a fine place for this. Unless we have gotten so tangled up by our tools as to make doing sensible things entirely impossible, I would assume that a simple explanation and requiest to the Secretariat would have permitted posting an I-D with a chosen non-consecutive sequence number as long as sequence numbers remained monotone increasing. If the Secretariat were being suitably cautious, I imagine they might ask for some AD to sign off, but I assume it wouldn't be too hard to find one of those :-( john