Thanks. What's the story for non-Google browsers? On Monday, July 14, 2025 at 1:08:39 PM UTC-7 riz...@google.com wrote:
> Thanks, Alex, I've updated the review bits in the tool. > > We are currently targeting this work for Chrome's Incognito mode only. > Users will not be able to pick their proxy, but they will be able to turn > off the feature. > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 2:18 PM Alex Russell <slightly...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> This is exciting work, and I'm inclined to LGTM. There are some reviews >> that need to be kicked off within the tool for us to be able to move >> forward; let us know if you need help. >> >> On the meat of the work, are you going to be launching this feature with >> any other Chromium browsers, either with Google as a proxy or using the >> same code paths with alternate proxies? And do you envision that users will >> be able to pick their proxy? >> >> Best, >> >> Alex >> >> On Monday, July 14, 2025 at 8:54:50 AM UTC-7 riz...@google.com wrote: >> >>> Contact emailsmiketa...@chromium.org, jhbrad...@google.com, >>> riz...@google.com >>> >>> Explainer >>> https://github.com/GoogleChrome/ip-protection/blob/main/README.md >>> >>> Specification >>> >>> None. While Apple does ship a similar feature, we believe that we need >>> the experience that comes with shipping before attempting standardization >>> or alignment of architectures. See the relevant discussion in the TAG >>> review >>> <https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1083#issuecomment-2891647225> >>> . >>> >>> Summary >>> >>> IP Protection is a feature that limits availability of a user’s original >>> IP address in third party contexts in Incognito mode, enhancing Incognito's >>> protections against cross-site tracking when users choose to browse in this >>> mode. >>> >>> IP addresses are essential to the basic functioning of the web, notably >>> for routing traffic and to prevent fraud and spam. However, like >>> third-party cookies, they can also be used for tracking. For Chrome users >>> who choose to browse in Incognito mode, we wanted to provide additional >>> control over their IP address, without breaking essential web functionality. >>> >>> To strike this balance between protection and usability, this proposal >>> focuses on limiting the use of IP addresses in a third-party context in >>> Incognito Mode. To that end, this proposal uses a list-based approach, >>> where only domains on the Masked Domain List >>> <https://github.com/GoogleChrome/ip-protection/blob/main/Masked-Domain-List.md> >>> (MDL) >>> in a third-party context will be impacted. >>> >>> 1% Experiment Summary >>> >>> Our 1% stable Incognito experiment did not show any statistically >>> significant movement for Core Web Vitals or increase in crashes on both >>> Desktop and Android platforms. >>> >>> As the feature is only enabled for a subset of traffic (domains on the >>> Masked Domain List) for Incognito sessions, the sample size is smaller than >>> we typically observe in a 1% experiment. We plan to carefully ramp the >>> experiment to evaluate performance and stability impact before launching to >>> Incognito 100%. >>> >>> >>> Blink component >>> >>> Internals>Network>Proxy >>> <https://issues.chromium.org/issues?q=customfield1222907:%22Internals%3ENetwork%3EProxy%22> >>> >>> >>> TAG review >>> >>> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1083 >>> >>> >>> TAG review status >>> >>> Closed (resolution: decline) >>> >>> >>> Risks >>> >>> >>> >>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>> >>> There shouldn’t be any interop concerns, as we’re routing certain >>> traffic through a series of proxies. >>> >>> >>> In terms of compatibility, there are a few possible risks, namely >>> assigning the incorrect geo >>> <https://github.com/GoogleChrome/ip-protection/blob/main/Explainer-IP-Geolocation.md> >>> >>> on egress. However, this would be considered a bug in our services (to be >>> fixed server side when discovered), not a consequence of the feature >>> itself. Another risk might be that these IP ranges aren’t recognized and >>> certain traffic is incorrectly blocked or a user loses access to a >>> resource. We have published our geofeed >>> <https://www.gstatic.com/ipprotection/geofeed> as one mitigation for >>> this risk. >>> >>> >>> Gecko: No signal >>> >>> >>> WebKit: Shipped/Shipping Safari has a similar feature called iCloud >>> Private Relay. >>> >>> >>> Web developers: Mixed signals There are some different views in the >>> various open and closed issues at >>> https://github.com/GoogleChrome/ip-protection/issues. They range from >>> neutral (questions about user choice, impact on anti-fraud/anti-abuse use >>> cases, etc.) to negative (questions around the ability to trust the system). >>> >>> >>> Other signals: >>> >>> >>> 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? >>> >>> None >>> >>> >>> >>> Debuggability >>> >>> We display which requests are proxied in the DevTools Network panel >>> (when IP Protection is enabled). Proxied requests can also be debugged via >>> netlogs. >>> >>> >>> We also have chrome://flags/#ip-protection-proxy-opt-out which >>> developers or users can use for testing suspected breakage. >>> >>> >>> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, Mac, >>> Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and Android WebView)? >>> >>> No >>> >>> We plan to launch this on all Blink platforms except WebView. >>> >>> >>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >>> ? >>> >>> No, and there isn’t any API to be tested. So we don’t plan to add any. >>> >>> >>> Flag name on about://flags >>> >>> None >>> >>> >>> Finch feature name >>> >>> EnableIpPrivacyProxy >>> >>> >>> Rollout plan >>> >>> (RARE) Experiment users ramp up over time >>> >>> >>> Requires code in //chrome? >>> >>> False >>> >>> >>> Tracking bug >>> >>> https://issues.chromium.org/issues/370696608 >>> >>> >>> Launch bug >>> >>> https://launch.corp.google.com/launch/4403761 >>> >>> >>> Estimated milestones >>> >>> Shipping on desktop >>> >>> 140 >>> >>> Shipping on Android >>> >>> 140 >>> >>> >>> 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). >>> >>> None >>> >>> >>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>> >>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/6574194264899584 >>> <https://chromestatus.com/feature/6574194264899584?gate=6525820887105536> >>> >>> >>> Links to previous Intent discussions >>> >>> Intent to Experiment: >>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/9s8ojrooa_Q/m/I6Rj5UTZBgAJ >>> >>> >>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/gBL-Nce3g9c?e=48417069 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- 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 visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/c3e9c4c4-7530-4c95-9749-24f646535024n%40chromium.org.
