+1 to adopt. I don't think we're planning to use this, but it looks useful and doesn't harm interoperability so I support it.
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt <[email protected] > wrote: > +1 > > > Am 04.02.2016 um 17:37 schrieb John Bradley: > >> 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 <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I support adoption of this document by the working group as either an >>> experimental or information specification. >>> >>> -- Mike >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: OAuth [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Hannes >>> Tschofenig >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 4:05 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> 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 >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
