(In reply to Hamish Willee from comment #11)
This bug has the
dev-doc-needed flag against it which has triggered an action for MDN docs: https://github.com/mdn/content/issues/8683
The proposed release note was:
Firefox now supports automatically performing HTTPS upgrades when HTTPS RR is available and using HTTPS RR as Alt-Svc headers.
, while the published release note is
Firefox can now automatically upgrade to HTTPS using HTTPS RR as Alt-Svc headers.
Those two versions sound slightly different. My interpretation would be that the published version is true - i.e. if the browser is able to get an HTTPS RR record it treats this like an
Alt-Svc header that had been populated with the equivalent information.
Is that close? If not, what is the distiction between "HTTPS upgrades when HTTPS RR is available" and "and using HTTPS RR as Alt-Svc headers."?
No, the proposed release note is more accurate than the published one.
There are actually two features of supporting HTTPS RR:
HTTPS upgrades when HTTPS RR is available. Here is what the spec says:
By publishing a usable HTTPS RR, the server operator indicates that
all useful HTTP resources on that origin are reachable over HTTPS,
similar to HTTP Strict Transport Security [HSTS].
So, when Firefox discovers the HTTPS RR is existed for the origin and we are using
HTTP to connect to the server, we'll upgrade the connection to
Using HTTPS RR as Alt-Svc. This is about using the information provided in HTTPS RR to optimize the process of establishing HTTPS connection. The concept of this is similar to Alt-Svc header.
- What docs were you imagining are needed on MDN?
I am working on a document (more like a blog post) to explain more details and I'll let you know when it is finished.