On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I've advocated Experimental, though I've thought Informational would also be > ok. On further reflection from people's comment, I now think Informational > would be the sufficient and safer choice. There's nothing to experiment on, nothing to report back on. It tends toward Informational. The inclination to make it a BCP would come from the fact that it's the basis for extending an existing BCP. However, it does not actually do the extending, it just sets the stage and the direction. As I said before (on some thread) I now believe this should be published as informational and then when a more specific BCP-level draft is written, this one can be reiterated in a section near the top. > The more important issue is that the draft does usefully introduce the topic > of PM to IETF work. Yes. Any status is acceptable to me, let's just get it out. Scott