RE: [security-services] SLO processing rules

["Scott Cantor" <cantor.2@osu.edu>]

> I agree with Scott that the MUST added to line 1224 in 
> profiles should be a SHOULD, at least to be consistent with everything
> else.

This wasn't new text. I didn't really touch any of the existing language, so
whatever says MUST predates all of this. There are MUSTs in both core and
profiles related to propagation, but it is inconsistent with the other part
of core that always said SHOULD.

It never really bugged me in profiles because profiles can always turn a
SHOULD into a MUST, but the text in core needs to be aligned regardless
because it's internally inconsistent.

I don't have the token right now and I haven't heard from Rob.

-- Scott