RFC6537 references OpenDHT as a "downwards" (wire direction) interface and points to XML-RPC calls and expected behavior on that. The GNS draft simply presumes the existence of a "DHT".
Maybe you could tell me which part of my comment is not true? I don't see what your example is intended to illustrate...
[Edited to add:]
P.S.: please read the guidelines at https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/informational-vs-expe... (section 3.)
GNS is very much something that can be "practiced" — or rather, it should be possible to practice. I don't think it can with your draft. I suppose that might be why you went for Informational rather than Experimental, but that kinda misses the point: you should be going for Experimental.
To walk through the guideline bulletpoints:
1. GNS can be practiced. Or rather: should be. It's a protocol.
2. If you want to push it through the IETF, you should probably open it to changes. What's the point otherwise? The IETF is not a rubber-stamping organization.
3. I'm pretty sure you're not publishing this as "dropped, just for the record"?
4. "If the IETF may publish something based on this on the standards track once we know how well this one works, it's Experimental." I feel that's exactly your intent?
5. Doesn't seem to apply. Maybe it should too?
All I'm saying is that your draft should be practice-able, but isn't, and I think it should be.
So, it's currently a disconnected lego brick hanging in the air. It serves no purpose until other documents accompany it that specify how to use it either for GNUnet, for IP, or something else. If there is more than one application document coming, at least one should (IMHO) be submitted at the same time¹ in order to aid review and understanding. If only one such application is expected, they should probably be merged into the same document.
Particularly, if it's to be applied for non-GNUnet (e.g. IP), it does need to say what underlying DHT is to be used. Otherwise it's not actually a naming system but 10 naming systems – which is, er, rather useless.
¹: it doesn't need to progress or be finalized at the same time, but the document should at least be published.