As you can see this ID currently has "WG state In WG Last Call" which means the Working Group were asked if they have any final stuff that needs changing. After this it could enter a state where it needs word smithing, or it could even just get sent to the IESG and then there's an opportunity for the wider community to chime in.
[Keep in mind though, the IETF's RFCs don't dictate what gets done, we're agreeing engineering documents here, the implementations do in fact already exist and are in use for some systems, they might change to adopt any hypothetical change in the final RFC, or equally the RFC might be wrong, there's one for how HTTP Cookies should work and it describes how a working group decided they should work - but they just kept working the way they had before anyway]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-esni/
As you can see this ID currently has "WG state In WG Last Call" which means the Working Group were asked if they have any final stuff that needs changing. After this it could enter a state where it needs word smithing, or it could even just get sent to the IESG and then there's an opportunity for the wider community to chime in.
[Keep in mind though, the IETF's RFCs don't dictate what gets done, we're agreeing engineering documents here, the implementations do in fact already exist and are in use for some systems, they might change to adopt any hypothetical change in the final RFC, or equally the RFC might be wrong, there's one for how HTTP Cookies should work and it describes how a working group decided they should work - but they just kept working the way they had before anyway]