I don’t think that’s quite a fair representation of reality. “Standards Track” RFCs are fully-baked internet standards, and “RFC” is a misnomer the cause of which is “historical reasons”.
But as regards this particular RFC, the key details that are terribly easy to miss are right at the start:
• Independent Submission
• Category: Informational
In other words, the IETF is not “vouching for” this thing as they would be on standards track RFCs. (Another hint at this is that the registry the RFC establishes is established with GANA rather than IANA. And the URI format; I suspect that if it went through the full standardisation process it’d be pushed to payto:authority:path rather than payto://authority/path, the // style of URI being strongly linked with DNS resolution.)
(I completely forgot to check this when I first read the spec, and I’m used to reading these sorts of specs and checking their status. Read my earlier comments bearing this in mind.)
Well, the IETF is volunteer-based, so if you feel strongly enough, go submit a comment! :)