Comment 8 for bug 1556884

While I consider it a bug if you look at it from the point of view that the validation was unintentionally removed in an unrelated patch, I also think that this is not really a bug in the sense that we already have at least one use case where this is useful, and we haven't come up with any reason why it's a problem. I would vote for keeping it as is unless the reference implementation does not handle this case.