I have reviewed this document as part of the DNS directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the
IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews
during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments
just like any other last call comments.

There's no DNS in this draft so I reviewed it from the perspective of an author of DNS drafts.

TL;DR
It's unclear to me if complexity is worth the benefits compared to alternatives listed in section 6.
The process seems so complicated that I can very well imagine people will not want to go through it.

Having said that, in principle this could work, assuming all parties (and there are a lot of them involved!) are cooperative and respond in a timely manner. This might or might not happen in practice. E.g. the DNS community struggles to execute simpler procedures than this.

It's unclear what would happen if a registry is closed/expired and years later it needs to be resurrected by a new development. Is that a new registry and the old one stays conserved indefinitely? E.g. the multi-qtypes DNS extension took about 14 years from initial proposal to RFC, so apparently the DNS community has great skill in dragging its feet. Maybe it is not a problem, I don't know.

Apologies for the grim tone. It's hard for me to see the benefits. But perhaps I'm blind - feel free to ignore me.