CHIPS is now enabled for 100% of Chrome 110+ users. The feature is also now enabled by default <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4385140> on the Chromium tip-of-tree, which corresponds to the Chrome 114 release.
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 9:10:50 AM UTC-4 Kaustubha Govind wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 1:24 AM Alexandru Mihai <a.m...@eyeo.com> wrote: > >> Awesome, thanks for letting me know 🙂 >> >> The rollout will cover all versions from 110 to current, not just the >> latest version right? >> > > Correct, all versions from Chrome 110 onwards are covered. > > >> >> On Mar 30, 2023, at 03:49, Kaustubha Govind <kaust...@google.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Alex, >> >> Apologies for the late response. The rollout is currently still at 10%; >> but we've been able to make progress on resolving metrics regressions; and >> intend to go to 100% either later this week, or early next week. We'll send >> an update here when that happens. >> >> K >> >> On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 12:47:46 PM UTC-4 Alexandru Mihai wrote: >> >>> Hi @Dylan, >>> >>> What's the current status of the rollout? Have you moved to 50%? >>> >>> Best, >>> Alex M >>> >>> On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 8:48:09 PM UTC+2 Dylan Cutler wrote: >>> >>> Hey all, >>> >>> Another update. We decided to roll out CHIPS to 10% of stable instead of >>> 50% to get a better picture on whether CHIPS is having impacts on any of >>> our guiding metrics before rolling out to 50%. Our plan is to let the >>> experiment gather data for 7 days at 10% before checking metrics again and >>> rolling out to 50%. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Dylan >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 4:15 PM Dylan Cutler <dylan...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hey all, >>> >>> We were planning to ramp up CHIPS to 50% of stable this week, but upon >>> doing metrics analysis we see some guardrail metrics have variations >>> between our control/experiment groups. We are delaying the ramp-up a couple >>> days to do additional analysis to make sure the variations are legitimate >>> and/or are actually caused by partitioned cookies. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Dylan >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 6:40 PM Dylan Cutler <dylan...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hey all, >>> >>> Another update for CHIPS, we will be rolling out to 5% stable starting >>> tomorrow. Canary/beta/dev will remain enabled at 50%. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Dylan >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 11:36 AM Dylan Cutler <dylan...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hey all, >>> >>> We have enabled the PartitionedCookies feature on 1% of stable. We will >>> continue to keep the feature enabled on 50% of canary/dev/beta. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Dylan >>> >>> On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 1:46:10 PM UTC-5 Dylan Cutler wrote: >>> >>> Hey all, >>> >>> Another quick update. Due to a partitioned cookies privacy bug >>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1405772> that >>> was discovered, we have to delay the launch of CHIPS to M110, which is the >>> most recent release with the patch. >>> >>> Since M110 has been released to beta, we have enabled the >>> PartitionedCookies feature on 50% of dev/beta/canary. We will begin rolling >>> out to 1% stable next week. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Dylan >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 1:07 PM Dylan Cutler <dylan...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hey all, quick update. >>> >>> We intend to roll out the feature in gradual increments starting January >>> 10, 2023; and expect to reach 5% of Chrome instances on January 24, 2023 >>> and stay there for a couple of weeks. Once we are satisfied that there is >>> no regression in metrics/behavior, we will proceed with the rollout. >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 10:55 AM Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >>> LGTM3 >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 5:24 AM Yoav Weiss <yoav...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >>> LGTM2 >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 10:43 AM Johann Hofmann <joha...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 5:37 PM Chris Harrelson <chri...@chromium.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 10:34 AM 'Johann Hofmann' via blink-dev < >>> blin...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Yoav, >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 5:28 AM Yoav Weiss <yoav...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 10:57 PM 'Dylan Cutler' via blink-dev < >>> blin...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >>> Contact emails: >>> >>> dylan...@google.com, kaust...@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). >>> >>> >>> Thanks for the details! :) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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+...@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+...@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+...@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+...@chromium.org. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfXOZKtBQPewkukz85JZdT6OXSqLTz8%2BvUZQ6rBaY4hQ3g%40mail.gmail.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfXOZKtBQPewkukz85JZdT6OXSqLTz8%2BvUZQ6rBaY4hQ3g%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/ceddf0a0-3757-44ba-bd22-22d8ce4ffa62n%40chromium.org.
