Subject: [scim] issue #28 consensus call

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 20:33:44 +0200

Folks,

At Orlando we polled the room and there was clear consensus for closing
28 by including a non-normative text in the spec explaining how multi-
tenacy could be implemented.

This email serves as a confirmation for that consensus call - speak up now
if you disagree.

        Leif & Morteza

---

From: Anthony Nadalin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 21:01:05 +0000

+1

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Leif Johansson
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:34 AM
To: scim WG
Subject: [scim] issue #28 consensus call

Folks,

At Orlando we polled the room and there was clear consensus for closing
28 by including a non-normative text in the spec explaining how multi- tenacy could be implemented.

This email serves as a confirmation for that consensus call - speak up now if you disagree.

        Leif & Morteza
_______________________________________________
scim mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim

---

From: Chris Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 21:53:53 -0400

I agree with the consensus call for closing #28 as suggested in the issue
tracker.

C.