[bgmp] RE: Note for draft-ietf-bgmp-spec

["Dave Thaler" <dthaler at windows.microsoft.com>]

I just now re-read RFC 2026 sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 and believe
that Experimental is more in the spirit of the text of the NOTE
you propose (which I have no problem with).

The same reason below also applies to other protocols, such as
the original PIM-SM and MASC, which both went to Experimental
instead of Informational.

-Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Fenner [mailto:fenner@research.att.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 3:02 PM
> To: bgmp@ietf.org
> Cc: Dave Thaler
> Subject: Note for draft-ietf-bgmp-spec
> 
> 
> Folks,
> 
>   The IESG approved draft-ietf-bgmp-spec, with a request for a note
> describing why it's going for informational instead of standards
track.
> I drafted the following; comments are appreciated.
> 
> 
> NOTE:
>   This specification is published for the general information of the
>   Internet technical community and as an archival record of the work
>   done.  Although the working group had consensus on this document,
>   there was insufficient interest from the operational and vendor
>   community to develop an implementation, which is a requirement for
>   a routing protocol to enter the standards track.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
>   Bill

_______________________________________________
bgmp mailing list
bgmp@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bgmp