On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:10 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
--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.
I was told this was impossible with the current tools, so I opted for this.
-Ekr
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