I've written a few RFCs.

For any RFC, there will be a "comment" after publication from someone who did not take earlier comments seriously enough to read them.

Exactly the attitude described by GP comment

Mind boggling

You may be relieved to hear that there's a straightforward process to have an RFC revised. Step 1 of that process, however, is reading the the RFC and the archived email about the RFC.

You can't just arrive after publication, ignore what others said before you, and expect anyone to listen to you.

…and, for that matter, there was an earlier draft phase where the author was R’ing For your C. And you could have jumped in then and been more-or-less welcome.

Sounds like RFC ought to be the name of that draft phase, rather than a name encompassing all phases, especially not the final phase in which C's are no longer R'd.

Historical precedent. They assigned a grad student to write up the notes; he wasn't sure he had got everything, so he titled it an RFC.

At this point, as we close in on 10,000 final-stage documents, it's better to pretend that "RFC" is just a name, not an acronym.

Times changed. Historical names did not.

"many of the early RFCs were actual Requests for Comments and were titled as such to avoid sounding too declarative and to encourage discussion.[8][9] The RFC leaves questions open and is written in a less formal style. This less formal style is now typical of Internet Draft documents, the precursor step before being approved as an RFC." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments

RFCs can be titled Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) or policies once they are accepted.