Very likely: Because they are managed by software that has existed for decades when expectations and needs were very different than today, but which works well and correctly. Why invest time and effort into changing a system that is working well enough? Whether you need to view it on a screen or print it out, this format works.
Also, I guarantee there are any number of downstream consumers of RFCs which take this sort of format as a given, and which will break on even a minor change. And why break those downstream systems if you don't have to?
Basically, any changes will break something. So the benefits of the changes need to be bigger than the costs of the changes. Not to mention the cost in wasted time of all the humans bikeshedding how to change it to make it "better".
Dealing with the ongoing cost of humans having to read across artificial page breaks is a pretty minor concern compared to the costs of all that.
Also, I guarantee there are any number of downstream consumers of RFCs which take this sort of format as a given, and which will break on even a minor change. And why break those downstream systems if you don't have to?
Basically, any changes will break something. So the benefits of the changes need to be bigger than the costs of the changes. Not to mention the cost in wasted time of all the humans bikeshedding how to change it to make it "better".
Dealing with the ongoing cost of humans having to read across artificial page breaks is a pretty minor concern compared to the costs of all that.