Should interface association descriptors be checked against the "protected interface classes" list?

[ArcaneNibble]

USB IADs contain their own class/subclass/protocol fields, and the USB specification (both the 2.0 IAD ECN and the 3.2 base specification) state that "the values in these fields can be the same as the interface [values]" (emphasis mine).

What happens especially if they're not?

[reillyeon]

In practice I don't think they'd ever differ in a way that is meaningful to these checks but I don't see an issue with expanding the checks to include the class/subclass/protocol fields from the "function" that the interface being checked is a part of as defined by the IADs.