Mm, not really. By its own admission, it is descriptive, not prescriptive:
> This section documents the format that seems to be followed by most implementations
And it came out in 2005, by which date CSVs had already been in use for some twenty or thirty years.
Yes, CSV is much, much older. In fact it predates personal computers. And it went through changes. Again: None of that matters. We have a standard, we should use the standard, and systems should demand the standard.
Standards are meant to ensure minimal-friction interoperability. If systems don't enforce standards, then there is no point in having a standard in the first place.
Whether it is formally called a standard or no doesn't change the fact that this is the document everyone points at when determining what CSV is and is supposed to look like. So it is de-facto a standard. Call it a "quasi standard" if that makes you happy.