Question from ADs: Change of provisional URL registration rules?

Hi folks,
one question for you:

A rather reasonable new protocol has been proposed, with a rather
reasonable new URL scheme for it: draft-rfced-info-faith-02.txt

Trouble is, the authors want this published as Informational, not
Standards-track, and our current provisional rule says standards-track
processing of URL schemes is required, partly in order to make sure
the field is not incredibly messed up before you guys can make
a shot at making rules for it.

The patience of the author is limited; I would like to get his stuff
out the door ASAP.

My question is: Given that the URL scheme makes sense in the opinion
of the AD, and that the IESG does not object, does it make sense for
me to declare that this is an IESG-blessed departure from the AD-declared
policy, or do you think Something Bad will happen?

                     Harald A