Raymond,
a request for adoption as a proposed standard must be passed to the IESG, so you've acted according to the process.
I'm hereby Thomas Narten, who is in charge of the DNSEXT WG, to act as shepherding AD for this document.
Note: This area has multiple known proposals, and it would probably be less than optimal if users deploy four or five different types of sender-authentication records, all of which need large uptake in order to be reasonably useful. So expect a debate - and it's by no means certain that the result will be an IETF standard that resembles your document.
Harald, I note that the ASRG is actively engaged in trying to reconcile several of the proposals in this area. As such, I think the correct course of action is to direct this person to the ASRG so he can join the debate there. I certainly would act to block this document if it came to a vote, citing existing activity being alreayd underway in this area.
Now, perhaps it is inappropriate for the ASRG, a research group, to be undertaking this activity. If that's the case then perhaps we should be thinking about creating a WG to handle this.
I also think this proposal has everything to do with MTAs and email operation and little if anything to do with DNS operation. As such, I think assignment of it to DNSEXT is inappropriate. This belongs in apps.
I will also add that I have serious misgivings about all of the proposals in this space, but it seems inevitable that one of them, or much worse, more than one of them, is going to see widespread deployment no matter what the IETF does or does not do. (SPF in particular seems to be gaining considerable momentum.) As such, unpleasant though it may be, we need to be thinking in terms of damage control.
Ned