On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 5:37 PM Chris Harrelson <chris...@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 10:34 AM 'Johann Hofmann' via blink-dev < > blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Hi Yoav, >> >> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 5:28 AM Yoav Weiss <yoavwe...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 10:57 PM 'Dylan Cutler' via blink-dev < >>> blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Contact emails: >>>> >>>> dylancut...@google.com, kaustub...@google.com >>>> >>>> Proposal repository: >>>> >>>> https://github.com/privacycg/CHIPS >>>> >>>> Design doc: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wL2lCXpaVOi0cWOn_ehfLFIZQxT3t0SH-ANnZYPEB0I/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> Specification: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cutler-httpbis-partitioned-cookies/ >>>> >>> >>> Can you expand on the plans for this I-D? Have y'all talked to the >>> HTTPWG? >>> >> >> Yes, this is being discussed in HTTPWG. Dylan presented CHIPS at IETF >> 115, minutes are here: >> https://httpwg.org/wg-materials/ietf115/minutes.html#cookies >> > > Great. Were there any concerns raised there that might create a risk for > CHIPS? > Not as far as I'm aware of. I couldn't attend the meeting in person, but revisited it with the team. From what I was told the main discussion point was whether we shouldn't just partition all 3P cookies by default instead of giving developers the ability to decide. It's a valid question, but one that has been extensively discussed between browser vendors in Privacy CG, and both Safari and Chrome have made it clear that they strongly prefer blocking 3P cookies by default (with Firefox not being opposed to that). We'll of course keep on engaging with these concerns and questions in HTTPWG, but it seems like a decision that ultimately browsers should have the most authority on. In any case, I don't think that this discussion presents any compat risk for CHIPS, as the Partitioned attribute would be compatible with a hypothetical partition-by-default future (i.e. by being a no-op). > >> One important thing to note is that the HTML/Fetch <-> Cookies spec >> interfaces aren't well defined at the moment, which also affects other >> specs that deal with cookie changes such as the Storage Access API. We're >> working on fixing this in a larger effort called "cookie layering" >> <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/2084>, which is >> intended to give Fetch some more responsibility in providing the >> information that is used to select cookies from the cookie store. This way >> we can actually access concepts like "top-level site" at the right >> implementation layer. So, in the mid-term, parts of CHIPS will likely end >> up back in HTML and Fetch. >> >> In the meantime, like for SameSite, the RFC will hand-wave some of the >> browser bits. >> >> >>> >>>> Summary: >>>> >>>> Given that Chrome plans to deprecate unpartitioned third-party cookies, >>>> we want to give developers the ability to use cookies in cross-site >>>> contexts that are partitioned by top-level site to meet use cases >>>> <https://developer.chrome.com/en/docs/privacy-sandbox/chips/#use-cases> >>>> that don't track users cross-site (e.g. SaaS embeds, headless CMS, sandbox >>>> domains, etc.). Chrome will introduce a mechanism to opt into having >>>> third-party cookies partitioned by top-level site using a new cookie >>>> attribute, Partitioned. >>>> >>>> Since we announced our Intent to Experiment >>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/_dJFNJpf91U/m/OXzFi_6wAwAJ?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> with CHIPS, there have been some changes to the API: >>>> >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> The Partitioned attribute no longer requires >>>> <https://github.com/privacycg/CHIPS/pull/46> the __Host- prefix or >>>> its required attributes. The Secure requirement remains. >>>> - >>>> >>>> We are changing the per-partition-per-domain limit to be based on >>>> the total size (in bytes) of the cookies set by a domain in a particular >>>> partition in addition to the number of cookies. We intend >>>> <https://github.com/privacycg/CHIPS/issues/48#issuecomment-1264126065> >>>> to impose a limit of 10 KB per-embedded-site, per-top-level-site and >>>> increase the numeric limit from 10 to 180. >>>> - >>>> >>>> For sites embedded in top-level domains that are in a First-Party >>>> Set <https://github.com/WICG/first-party-sets>, their cookies' >>>> partition key will no longer be the owner domain of that set. Rather, >>>> the >>>> partition key will always be the top-level domain that the cookie was >>>> created on. >>>> >>>> >>>> Blink component: >>>> >>>> Internals>Network>Cookies >>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Internals%3ENetwork%3ECookies> >>>> >>>> TAG review: >>>> >>>> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/654 (Supportive early >>>> review) >>>> >>>> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/779 (Oct 19 >>>> specification review) >>>> >>>> Risks >>>> >>>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>>> >>>> Firefox: Positive >>>> <https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#chips> >>>> >>>> WebKit: Supported incubation >>>> <https://github.com/privacycg/proposals/issues/30#issuecomment-1113257336>, >>>> Official position pending >>>> <https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/50> >>>> >>>> Web developers: Developers have indicated that CHIPS does solve for >>>> many use cases that depend on access to cookies in cross-site contexts ( >>>> 1 <https://github.com/privacycg/CHIPS/issues/8>, 2 >>>> <https://github.com/privacycg/CHIPS/issues/30#issuecomment-1104225686>, >>>> 3 >>>> <https://triplelift.com/privacy-hub/w3c-proposals-explained-privacy-with-a-side-of-chips/>). >>>> Through incubation, and the Origin Trial, we received feedback to improve >>>> ease-of-use, particularly to allow for easier migration of existing systems >>>> to use CHIPS. We believe we have satisfactorily resolved these concerns >>>> (see changes made listed under Summary section). >>>> >>>> Other signals: >>>> >>>> Ergonomics >>>> >>>> N/A >>>> >>>> >>>> Activation >>>> >>>> This feature introduces a new cookie attribute, Partitioned, which is >>>> opt-in only. Sites which do not set their cookies with Partitioned should >>>> not see any change in the browser's behavior when we ship. >>>> >>>> >>>> Security >>>> >>>> See S&P questionnaire for TAG >>>> <https://github.com/privacycg/CHIPS/blob/main/TAG-S%26P-questionnaire.md> >>>> >>>> >>>> WebView application risks >>>> >>>> Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such >>>> that it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? >>>> >>>> This feature does not deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs. >>>> This feature is behind a killswitch. >>>> >>>> >>>> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, >>>> Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Android WebView)? >>>> >>>> Yes >>>> >>>> Is this feature covered by web platform tests? >>>> >>>> Yes >>>> <https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/cookies/partitioned-cookies> >>>> >>>> Flag name >>>> >>>> partitioned-cookies >>>> >>>> Requires code in //chrome? >>>> >>>> No >>>> >>>> Tracking bug: >>>> >>>> https://crbug.com/1225444 >>>> >>>> Non-OSS dependencies >>>> >>>> Does the feature depend on any code or APIs outside the Chromium open >>>> source repository and its open-source dependencies to function? >>>> >>>> Not anymore than cookies already do now. >>>> >>>> Estimated milestones >>>> >>>> OriginTrial desktop last >>>> >>>> 106 >>>> >>>> OriginTrial desktop first >>>> >>>> 100 >>>> >>>> OriginTrial Android last >>>> >>>> 106 >>>> >>>> OriginTrial Android first >>>> >>>> 100 >>>> >>>> Anticipated spec changes >>>> >>>> Open questions about a feature may be a source of future web compat or >>>> interop issues. Please list open issues (e.g. links to known github issues >>>> in the project for the feature specification) whose resolution may >>>> introduce web compat/interop risk (e.g., changing to naming or structure of >>>> the API in a non-backward-compatible way). >>>> >>>> List of open issues: https://github.com/privacycg/CHIPS/issues >>>> >>>> Chrome Platform Status page: >>>> >>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5179189105786880 >>>> >>>> Links to previous Intent discussions >>>> >>>> Intent to Prototype: >>>> >>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/hvMJ33kqHRo/ >>>> >>>> Intent to Experiment: >>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/_dJFNJpf91U/m/YqP09XbbAgAJ >>>> >>>> Intent to Extend Experiment: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/kZRtetS8jsY/m/ppK4kDbqAwAJ >>>> >>>> >>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/MKQODOL0Fso/m/nZXI2dqwAQAJ >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAMCNMFTt9hEnH1%2BBzB6c0qQijbBEJwvUKPKSO2gu7E-A%2BY_v8w%40mail.gmail.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAMCNMFTt9hEnH1%2BBzB6c0qQijbBEJwvUKPKSO2gu7E-A%2BY_v8w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "blink-dev" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfUDzq6pUpw_%2BGMBxzrsb23qtw5Vnv-QG6yZQ35G_j%2BZfQ%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfUDzq6pUpw_%2BGMBxzrsb23qtw5Vnv-QG6yZQ35G_j%2BZfQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "blink-dev" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAD_OO4gVfT1aAHE4%3D3Cs6KoCA54q14bGaPepuqofdTEKJVkkgw%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAD_OO4gVfT1aAHE4%3D3Cs6KoCA54q14bGaPepuqofdTEKJVkkgw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAD_OO4hrFa8OFC_WdWMxCSKwKur7_Va3x_fwcFAxM6ybr36Z9Q%40mail.gmail.com.
