Looks like speculation

When we are talking about security, and saying that it's important for security software to be
"open", what we mean by "open" in this context is that anybody should be able to see how it
works.  You want it to be inspected by experts.  Most important, you want to avoid "security
by obscurity", which experience has shown is a bad principle.

So whether it is standardized by a standards body has absolutely nothing to do with the case.
If a new version comes out, of course that needs to be re-examined and re-audited.  And if no
finalized version has come out yet, that just means that it's not time yet for final auditing,
but it's a great time for the public to point out flaws and suggest improvements.

Some of the papers on Bitfrost are written as if Bitfrost were completely specified,
implemented, in use, and so on.  If so, then someone has grounds for complaint.  But they
should carefully complain about just that, NOT that it's "not open".