Yeah a standards document with the phrase "Currently it is not possible to answer the question" threw me, I'd argue pretty strongly that's not how standards should be written, but oh well, lesson learned.
But that's not a "standards document"? Firstly, unlike for WG21 the goal of the Rust project is to implement a programming language, the output of WG21 is an ISO Document and even though in fact the final document is largely useless the process to write it is crucial, nobody reads that official $$$$ PDF from ISO but they do use the drafts which are, though they insist otherwise for legal reasons, functionally equivalent. However the output of the Rust project is the language itself, not a standards document.
Beyond that though, neither Rust RFCs nor their nearest analogue the C++ P-series proposal papers are the output product - they're proposing to change that output and so they're written in a very different style.
Barry even starts with an anecdote! This would be entirely inappropriate for a standard but he wasn't writing a standard, like this Rust RFC he was making a proposal.
Beyond that though, neither Rust RFCs nor their nearest analogue the C++ P-series proposal papers are the output product - they're proposing to change that output and so they're written in a very different style.
For example here's Barry Revzin's P3450: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p34...
Barry even starts with an anecdote! This would be entirely inappropriate for a standard but he wasn't writing a standard, like this Rust RFC he was making a proposal.