[OAUTH-WG] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-spop-12: (with COMMENT)

"Brian Haberman" <brian@innovationslab.net> Wed, 10 June 2015 13:54 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150610135456.14302.51415.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 06:54:56 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/cDWkxwEK7U6ejy_J5V5_PvR2KUo>
Cc: draft-ietf-oauth-spop@ietf.org, oauth-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-oauth-spop.shepherd@ietf.org, oauth@ietf.org, draft-ietf-oauth-spop.ad@ietf.org
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-spop-12: (with COMMENT)

Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-oauth-spop-12: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-spop/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Barry's DISCUSS about "plain".  Using "plain" makes no sense
to me.

[OAUTH-WG] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft… Brian Haberman