RE: Note for draft-ietf-bgmp-spec

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:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 3:02 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: Dave Thaler
> Subject: Note for draft-ietf-bgmp-spec
>=20
>=20
> Folks,
>=20
>   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.
>=20
>=20
> 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.
>=20
>=20
> Thanks,
>   Bill