Hello @FedorDoc !
Far from me the idea of “stealing” this thread but I would be happy to share a few thoughts about your question:
I think one of the specific problem this proposal is trying to “fix/improve” (for lack of a better word) is the archival process of ACES-compliant projects which use a non-ACES Output Transform/DRT.
If I remember correctly (unfortunately the meeting link I shared above is now unavailable), one of the issues faced currently is that these projects have the “Output Transform/DRT” baked in their archives, which kind defeats the whole purpose of a “scene-referred” archive. I wrote a bit about it in this article.
I will share here my favorite quote about Daniele´s proposal:
I cannot understand why anybody would like to limit all of their productions to use the same output transform. It would be the same as limiting the Production to use a single camera. Documentaries, features, animation, hand drawn, all of them have their unique challenges. Do you think film would have flourished in the last 100 years if the Academy would have standardized the chemical receipt ? Instead the academy standardized the transport mechanism. The 35mm perf. And this was exactly the right thing to do. People could innovate and interchange.
I think the past three years and the “recent” comments (including Colorfront´s feedback) have proven this commentary to be quite on point. Hopefully for ACES 3.0. 
Regards,
Chris