Should the change to "Enabled by default" appear for 114 on https://chromestatus.com/roadmap ?
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 4:16:05 PM UTC-5 Kaustubha Govind wrote: > 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/93a3b91f-a420-4bff-9b25-3f399c4bbb2bn%40chromium.org.
