Switch position on zstd to positive

[jesup]

Feel free to bikeshed on the wording. Switched the issue to 775 where we agreed to ship zstd

[tantek]

Updated summary and position reflect latest discussions in #775.

Only nit I have is that https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8478 says "Category: Informational" so should this be labeled a "Proposal" rather than "IETF" since as the RFC says:

Despite use of the word "standard" as part of its name, readers are
advised that this document is not an Internet Standards Track
specification; it is being published for informational purposes only.

And if it's actually (being) interoperably implemented, who is taking care of moving this to a standards-track working group to get it officially (not just de facto) standardized?

[adamroach]

As the person who wrote the quoted text: based on the history of this document in the IETF, I'm pretty comfortable asserting that no one is likely to ever have the appetite to push the zstd specification onto a standards track. Unless some other SDO takes up the work of publishing a standard, its status as "informational" is likely permanent.

I agree with Tantek that "proposal" is the correct category for this feature, per my understanding of feature characterizations.