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

Reply via email to