Open ahelsing opened 9 years ago
It should continue to reject non-compliant URNs. Supporting them just means that other tools don't have any leverage to get them fixed, and have to build the same non-complaint support in (usually "discovering" these issues at different times). We should all just agree that this URN is broken.
Should the sliver_info table reject sliver URNs that are not well formed?
Currently, the AuthZ code rejects things that are not valid urns, as in:
Note that the sliver name includes a space (between
Client
and3
). It also includes a colon (:
). According to the spec neither is allowed.How bad would it be if we accepted non compliant sliver URNs?