Re: [Fwd: [security-services] Optionality of SP support of a SOAPinterface for IdP-initiated SLO]

ext Scott Cantor wrote:

>>I just noticed that, in fact, we currently do not mandate SP-initiated 
>>SOAP-based SLO at the IdP either. Since the same issue arises, I would 
>>like to amend my previous proposal to make the following two 
>>changes to [1]
>>
>>* Mandate Single Logout (IdP-initiated) - SOAP support by SPs
>>* Mandate Single Logout (SP-initiated) - SOAP support by IdPs
>>
>>Both of these changes affect the table at line 151 of [1] - each 
>>changing a cell from 'OPTIONAL' to 'MUST'
>>    
>>
>
>Wouldn't you need it in both directions?
>
>* Mandate Single Logout (IdP-initiated) - SOAP support by IdPs
>* Mandate Single Logout (SP-initiated) - SOAP support by SPs
>
>Otherwise you have support to consume SOAP logout at both ends, but no
>requirement that the IdP can relay it, since it might not support it, and
>its SPs might not support receiving it.
>
>I assume that's why all four are a MUST in ID-FF, not just 2 of them.
>
>  
>
Yes, actually, you're right. That is actually what I meant.

- JohnK