What is at issue, IMO, is whether the Internet is better off
having a couple of RRTYPEs around with no documentation or
having them documented.
there are two solutions to this
Probably more than two if your comment indicates that you agree
that having registered RRTYPEs documented is, on balance, better
than not having them documented:
(1) We can continue along the path of Informational RFC
publication in the IETF Stream
(2) Joe could have submitted the document to the ISE and
requested Informational RFC publication in the Independent
stream.
(3) Joe could post the definitional document on a web site
somewhere that could provide a stable reference and then ask
IANA to incorporate that reference, presumably in URL form,
rather than the name of an I-D in the registry. If this is a
Canadian initiative, perhaps the Canadian government would like
to provide that location and reference but, clearly, there are
other alternatives.
Did you have something else in mind?
remove the rrtypes from the registry