Hector Santos [mailto:hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com] wrote:
[snip]
I highly suggest that the documentation make it very clear "testing"
attributes are time limited options and designed for
preferred short migration periods. In addition, I suggest a
statement be added eluding to the probability a system
implementation will catch on this exploit and will add their
own "time limited" caching. In other words, a system might
record the first usage of these 'testing" records and then
put a expiration and/or counter time on it repeated usage.
You, nor Meng can not stop us from implementing this sort of
"derivative"
logic in our receiver system that compensates for the "holes"
in the current functional specification.
I wouldn't dream of trying to stop you, Hector. It is of course the
choice of the receiving side to take whatever action it deems
appropriate based on the information it has available. That by itself
should be enough incentive for senders to remove the "testing" attribute
as soon as they possibly can.