Hey all, I would like to clarify that the current deprecation trial ends on M116 so that I would like to extend it to M119.
best, Yifan On Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 3:38:15 PM UTC+2 Yifan Luo wrote: > Contact emailstit...@chromium.org, cl...@chromium.org, mk...@chromium.org > , va...@chromium.org, l...@chromium.org > > Explainer > https://github.com/WICG/private-network-access/blob/master/explainer.md > > Specificationhttps://wicg.github.io/private-network-access > > Design docs > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x1a1fQLOrcWogK3tpFBgQZQ5ZjcONTvD0IqqXkgrg5I/edit#heading=h.7nki9mck5t64 > > Summary > > Requires that private network requests for subresources from public > websites may only be initiated from a secure context. Examples include > internet to intranet requests and internet to loopback requests. This is a > first step towards fully implementing Private Network Access: > https://wicg.github.io/private-network-access/ > > > Blink componentBlink>SecurityFeature>CORS>PrivateNetworkAccess > <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3ESecurityFeature%3ECORS%3EPrivateNetworkAccess> > > TAG reviewhttps://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/572 > > TAG review statusIssues addressed > > Link to origin trial feedback summary > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1z5ZdCslNCnSVR7TNlUTHjSvunMFmT_9G9NOx8-O78-I/edit?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-DITlG8tDuFDWHiBUHnlSoQ > > Risks > > > Interoperability and Compatibility > > No interoperability risks. Compatibility risk is small but non-negligible. > UseCounters show ~0.1% of page visit making use of this feature. Direct > outreach to the largest users per UKM data revealed no objections to this > launch. Rolling this deprecation out to beta per the previous I2S resulted > in more feedback about the compatibility risk and the need for a time > extension. See the following doc for an extensive discussion: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bpis0QwaA9ZrRFmpPW6LiaPmdwT0UhhUMNsEnU0zfLk/edit > > > *Gecko*: Positive ( > https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/143) Tentatively > positive, but no formal position yet. > > *WebKit*: Positive ( > https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2021-May/031837.html) > > *Web developers*: Mixed signals ( > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bpis0QwaA9ZrRFmpPW6LiaPmdwT0UhhUMNsEnU0zfLk/edit) > > In our recent survey, most of websites are able to migrate if our new > permission prompt can be landed as a way for them to relax mixed content > checks. > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1z5ZdCslNCnSVR7TNlUTHjSvunMFmT_9G9NOx8-O78-I/edit?resourcekey=0-DITlG8tDuFDWHiBUHnlSoQ#gid=309953809 > ------------ > Some websites, broadly falling in the category of controller webapps for > IoT devices, find this change incompatible with their use cases. While many > use cases can be solved with specific workarounds, some still require > further engagement. > > *Other signals*: > > Activation > > Developers of non-secure sites that rely upon local servers will need to > upgrade to HTTPS. This might cause some complications, as mixed-content > checks will begin to apply. Chrome carves out HTTP access to loopback (as > perhttps://w3c.github.io/webappsec-secure-contexts/#localhost), which is > a release valve for folks who don't want to go through the effort of > securely-distributing certs for local servers. The initial launch in M92 > was delayed due to compatibility risks surfaced during the rollout to beta. > See this doc for a lot more details: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bpis0QwaA9ZrRFmpPW6LiaPmdwT0UhhUMNsEnU0zfLk/edit > > > Security > > This change should be security-positive. > > > 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? > > > > Debuggability > > When a request is made that violates this restriction and the feature is > not enabled, three things happen: 1. A warning message is logged to the > DevTools console. 2. A depreciation report is filed against the initiator > website's Reporting API, if so configured. 3. An issue surfaced in the > DevTools Issues panel. Likewise, when the feature is enabled and a request > is blocked, the same happens except that the message logged to the DevTools > console is an error and its text is slightly different. The devtools > network panel shows information about the source and remote address spaces > at play. > > > *Experiment Extension Reason:*We planned a prototyped permission prompt > to relax mixed-content for requests from HTTPS public websites to HTTP > local devices. However, we've missed the M116 branch point and now have a > prototype on M117 for users to play around. See demo: > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pnyQfIsXdtJnZoCBVSt4xim0yXjZ0Aqc/view?usp=sharing > We request for an extension for this deprecation trial to let users be > able to try the new permission prototype in M117 and the OT possibly start > from M117/M118. > ------ > We have collected 20+ developers' feedback since the last milestone. 85.7% > developers said that they are still migrating to HTTPS, 50% said they need > more time and 50% said they are not able to migrate local devices for > various reasons and need future help. > > In the meanwhile, we are also collecting developers' feedback on our > future plan for websites that cannot migrate their private devices to HTTPS > but would like to migrate their public websites. 11.1% websites answered > probably yes to our new feature and 72.2% responded might or might not. The > major considers are they also need the allowance on frames/iframes (Q8 > 64.7%), want to use IP address as ids in permission (Q12 82.3%), too many > permission prompt might be a spam (2 answers) and need to wait for other > browsers supporting Private Network Access. In this case, we are also > actively changing our further plan and collaborating with other browsers at > the same time. > > Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests > <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> > ?Yes > > Flag nameBlockInsecurePrivateNetworkRequests > > Requires code in //chrome?False > > Tracking bughttps://crbug.com/986744 > > Launch bughttps://crbug.com/1129801 > > Estimated milestones > OriginTrial desktop last 119 > OriginTrial desktop first 94 > DevTrial on desktop 86 > OriginTrial Android last 119 > OriginTrial Android first 94 > DevTrial on Android 86 > > Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status > https://chromestatus.com/feature/5436853517811712 > > Links to previous Intent discussionsReady for Trial: > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/EeGg7TxW6U4/m/7ZvqAqHLAwAJ > Intent to Experiment: > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/vlDZXlPb00k/m/1421ACiuAAAJ > Intent to Extend Experiment: > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/JPD001kqeck > Intent to Ship: > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/JPD001kqeck > > > This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status > <https://chromestatus.com/>. > -- > Yifan > -- 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/853649b1-22c3-419b-9eb6-fe1d8d9867b5n%40chromium.org.
