Not to be pedantic but this is not an RFC (yet). It is only a draft and should hopefully become an RFC in the future. The basic difference is that a draft is versioned and can change in content but an RFC is stable.
Also, RFCs are certainly not only standards track. There is a mix of types including Informational, Experimental and Standards track RFCs.
I agree 100% it's not yet an true "RFC". "Internet Draft" would be the proper terminology but I couldn't figure how to cleanly work that explanation in one swoop without distracting from the main point that it's just informational and instead fudged "draft informational RFC".
There was no claim that RFCs must be standards track, this is actually a false relation the last line explicitly calls out people for having. Maybe it should have been made even clearer this is a false assumption without relying on context.
I wonder if RFC 2026 is worthy of its own HN post. Just submitted :).
Also, RFCs are certainly not only standards track. There is a mix of types including Informational, Experimental and Standards track RFCs.