I support it. I have always thought of this as informational. It is not the only way to do it, and has no real interoperability impact.
John B. > On Feb 4, 2016, at 3:29 AM, Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > I support adoption of this document by the working group as either an > experimental or information specification. > > -- Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 4:05 AM > To: oauth@ietf.org > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Adoption: Stateless Client Identifier for OAuth 2 > > Hi all, > > this is the call for adoption of Stateless Client Identifier for OAuth 2, see > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bradley-oauth-stateless-client-id-02 > > Please let us know by Feb 2nd whether you accept / object to the adoption of > this document as a starting point for work in the OAuth working group. > > Ciao > Hannes & Derek > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
