Quote:
Originally Posted by sblair
We can't really go back and change requirements on existing functionality. We can put a "should" statement in there but can not make it a "shall" because there are existing products in the field already.
|
In this particular case it might also be that actually not mutch harm is done when clarifying this as originally intended.
It seems that very few (if any) actual responders currently implement non-consecutive IDs. In the worst case, a control software following the new standard will not recognize an available test on such a responder. Control software following the "scan all" approach is not affected anyway.
So if this in reality affects practically no one, it is indeed a common practice to clarify an existing standard in that way. HTTP for example has lots of such points.
Overall, it might be the easiest just to clarify that and still no one really gets hurt as the real world impact of this change might be very limited.
(oh my, people will start throwing things at me shortly ...
)
February 23rd, 2011
Threaded Mode