The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in the DNSOP WG, but this relationship does not prevent publishing.

[ Note: the below is not part of the official conflict review, it’s background / Warren Kumari's pontification ]

This was by far the most difficult conflict review that I've performed, and I spent much time considering what to propose as the position. I have had numerous discussions with the ISE, authors of the document, IESG, etc.

RFC5742 - "IESG Procedures for Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions" lists five possible "conclusions" from the conflict review process:

1. The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this
      document and IETF work.
   2. The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done
      in WG <X>, but this relationship does not prevent publishing.
   3. The IESG has concluded that publication could potentially disrupt
      the IETF work done in WG <X> and recommends not publishing the
      document at this time.
   4. The IESG has concluded that this document violates IETF procedures
      for <Y> and should therefore not be published without IETF review
      and IESG approval.
   5. The IESG has concluded that this document extends an IETF protocol
      in a way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be
      published without IETF review and IESG approval.


The IESG is expected to select one of these conclusions to assist the ISE in determining whether or not to proceed with publication, and whether publication of the document will conflict with work occurring in an IETF WG, or if it extends an IETF protocol in a way that requires IETF review. 

My initial conflict review position was "The IESG has concluded that publication could potentially disrupt the IETF work done in WG DNSOP, and recommends not publishing the document at this time." I had also strongly considered selecting "The IESG has concluded that this document extends an IETF protocol in a way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval.". My primary concerns were regarding the potential for namespace ambiguity / collisions with DNS names.

Discussions with the ISE and document authors led to a path forward which have sufficiently allayed my fears that I’m selecting the “this work is related to IETF work done in the DNSOP WG, but this relationship does not prevent publishing.” position. 

This path included changes to Section 1 (Introduction), Section 2 (Terminology), Section 5 (Resource Records), Section 9.10 (Namespace Ambiguity), and many others. It also included reviving and progressing the alt-tld document to reserve a portion of the namespace to mimize collisions with the DNS protocol namespace.

I'd like to thank the ISE and authors for all of their work and collaboration, as well as the DNSOP WG, DNSOP chairs, IAB and IESG for discussing this document, and working to find a way forward. Special thanks to Suzanne Woolf, Wes Hardaker and Harald Alvestrand for briefings and discussions.