dragana asked a question in https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D80953#2485909 , but it is not clear whether that is blocking. The network changes were copied from the original patch in [D79859](https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D79859), all of which were approved, including `r=necko-reviewers`. IMO the fix itself ([D80953](https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D80953)) is ready, but an explicit sign-off from a necko peer wouldn't hurt (even if only to confirm that the r+ from the original patch still stands).
Bug 1645204 Comment 19 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
dragana asked a question in https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D80953#2485909 , but it is not clear whether that is blocking. The network changes were copied from the original patch in [D79859](https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D79859), all of which were approved, including `r=necko-reviewers`. IMO the fix itself ([D80953](https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D80953)) is ready, but an explicit sign-off from a necko peer wouldn't hurt (even if only to confirm that the r+ from the original patch still stands). Edit: and the functional tests from [D80954](https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D80954) should have a small fixup following my review comments, and then land together with the actual fix, to make sure that there are no functional regressions.