Well, not that I'm a RFC professional or anything, but I'm also not really a fan of how RFC 8555 is written to be honest. E.g., the "directory" is often called a "directory resource" and is also listed in the resources section at 7.1, but it's not listed in section 9.7.5, the "resource types" registry (also not at IANA). To me such details stand out as "contradictory".
For me, RFCs "should" be written as structured as possible without any doubt in interpretation (CAA Issuer Critical Flag anyone?) or contradictions and I believe extensive use of definitions and strictly keeping to those definitions help a lot. I also like lists, tables and/or structured graphs more than too much words. (I'm not saying RFC 8555 nor draft-ietf-acme-ari don't do that or are a badly written. I just think it's perhaps RFC 8555 not the best example.)
I can appreciate that 
I would rather not stand in your shoes 
Mailing the ACME WG is kinda scary 
Maybe I'll do that, maybe not, I'll think about it