The current status of these prefs: #ifdef RELEASE_BUILD pref("network.http.altsvc.enabled", false); pref("network.http.altsvc.oe", false); #else pref("network.http.altsvc.enabled", true); pref("network.http.altsvc.oe", true); #endif The intention has always been to enable them one release after we ship h2 at proposed standard level (i.e. not a draft). gecko-36 is the first release to have enabled advertisement for h2 at non-draft status - therefore the alt svc changes should be done in 37.
Assignee: nobody → mcmanus
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Comment on attachment 8539476 [details] [diff] [review] pref change to true for altsvc Review of attachment 8539476 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- <kool-aid-man>OH YEAH!</kool-aid-man>
Attachment #8539476 - Flags: review?(hurley) → review+
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 4 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla37
Release Note Request (optional, but appreciated) [Why is this notable]: AltSvc enables so-called opportunistic (unauthenticated) encryption [Suggested wording]: Implemented HTTP/2 AltSvc support [Links (documentation, blog post, etc)]: (:hurley?)
(In reply to Florian Bender from comment #5) > [Links (documentation, blog post, etc)]: (:hurley?) I suspect mcmanus has something in the works (or will soon), since he's been the one writing all the code for this.
relnoted as "New: Implemented HTTP/2 AltSvc support for opportunistic (unauthenticated) encryption" mcmanus/hurley - I didn't find any Mozilla specific docs with a quick search. I also see that bug 1003448 is still marked dev-doc-needed. Do you know of any doc that I can link to that further explains this feature?
I suppose, unless mcmanus knows of a better doc somewhere, the I-D might be better than nothing? (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-04 is the version implemented in 37)
comment 8 is good. I'll also blog about this next week
I don't think the link in comment 8 is good for the release notes. It's simply too detailed for the audience. We need something that is more consumable starting with a bit of a lay description of the change. Patrick - Can you include a high level description of the feature in your blog post? If so, let's wait on the link until you have the post up.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.