SLO observations

[Cantor, Scott]

> This behaviour doesn't make a lot of sense to me, esp if answering
> "no" kills off any chance of using SLO in the near future (since the
> IDP will have forgotten about any other SPs I had sessions with).

The point wasn't to make SLO work later, the user has just said they don't want SLO. The reason for removing the session as soon as possible was to ensure that it in fact got removed if the user doesn't actually respond to the question because the general sense of everybody has always seemed to be "at all costs, kill the SSO".

The Yes/No prompt Marvin included was interpreted by me not as whether to logout or not, but whether to propagate. It's simply a different question being asked than you both seem to have assigned to it.

> Why even ask if you've prevent 1 of the 2 possible outcomes from
> working in the future anyway?

That's just the question it was actually asking. Personally, I have a hard time with the whole "logout should be local" idea, and I'm not sure I would even bother presenting that choice at all, at which point I guess this distinction would be moot.

I'm not going to quibble over "bad" and "more bad" though.

-- Scott