Re: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-zstd-window-size-02: (with COMMENT)

Hi Zahed,

We had previously been thinking this document would be informational
because it updates another informational document.
However, I agree that might not be the most accurate category here. I'm
happy to adjust categories to whatever is more appropriate.

Best,
Nidhi

On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 8:57 PM Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-httpbis-zstd-window-size-02: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-zstd-window-size/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for this document and I have no concerns from transport protocol
> point
> of view.
>
> This is an informational document updating another informational document.
> I am
> assuming that zstd has been deployed and used to that extend that the
> update
> was essential. does that also indicate that the "informational" may not be
> any
> more the accurate category for this? Has this been considered?
>
>
>