Individual submission referred to a BoF that cannot adopt: what is the intended path?

What is the intended path for an individual submission when the venue it is referred to does not exist yet?

I am asking about a general process question, using my own document as the worked example because the dates are on the record and anyone can check them.

draft-sirkkavaara-vaara-receipt-00 was posted on 21 June 2026. On 28 June the Independent Submissions Editor moved it into the ISE stream, set the intended status to Informational, and set the ISE state to Submission Received. On 2 August the stream was changed from ISE to none, with the document redirected to the agentproto discussion on the grounds that the subject matter overlaps.

agentproto is a BoF. It is not chartered. The datatracker states that it is not accepting document adoption.

and may or may not be chartered. There is no stated path back to the ISE if the BoF does not proceed, and no stated timeline in either direction.

My questions are about the process rather than about my document.

First, when the ISE declines a submission because a forming group may cover the topic, is the expected outcome that the author waits for the chartering decision, or that the submission is resubmitted later, or something else? I could not find this written down.

Second, is there a defined point at which the conflict is considered resolved, either by the group chartering or by it not chartering, and does the author need to do anything to restart the ISE process at that point?

Third, is there a way for an author to tell the difference between a hold that will resolve and one that will not? From the outside, the datatracker shows the same thing in both cases.

I am not asking anyone to be overruled and I am not disputing the referral. The ISE avoiding conflict with forming IETF work is understandable and I assume it is the correct call. What I cannot find is the documented route through the gap it creates, and I would rather ask than keep guessing.

For context on whether the work is live: the draft has continued through seven revisions, with -07 posted on 12 August. Its receipt format is referenced normatively in an open pull request in the x402 specification repository, authored by someone other than me, and the conformance vectors are public with a checker that imports none of my code, so third parties can and do reproduce the verdicts independently.
The document, if useful: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sirkkavaara-vaara-receipt/

Henri Sirkkavaara
Vaara - Runtime execution layer for AI agents
Built to see over the noise.
vaara.ioHelsinki, Finland