Can you clarify the deprecation trial timeline so far? The "intent to extend experiment" you linked to indicates experimentation until M106. Is that correct?
On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 3:35 PM 'Yifan Luo' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > Contact emailstito...@chromium.org, cl...@chromium.org, mk...@chromium.org > , v...@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 > > 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*: Worth prototyping ( > 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? > > > > Goals for experimentation > > User feedbacks collection: > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1z5ZdCslNCnSVR7TNlUTHjSvunMFmT_9G9NOx8-O78-I/edit?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-DITlG8tDuFDWHiBUHnlSoQ > ------------ It seems that many developers have not noticed the upcoming > launch despite outreach efforts, and will likely only notice once Chrome > ships the secure context restriction. Thus delaying the launch by a few > milestones to offer more breathing room to the currently-aware developers > would not mitigate the risk when we ship the next time. A Deprecation Trial > seems like the logical next step. This would allow us to protect the vast > majority of users of the web by at least requiring attackers to sign up for > the trial, itself a deterrent. Simultaneously, it would give enough time to > legitimate websites to work around the new restriction. Finally, it would > allow more time for discussions should our planned solutions fail to > adequately address developers’ concerns. > > > Reason this experiment is being extended > > 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. ------------ The main > workaround suggested to impacted websites was to use WebTransport's > serverCertificateHashes feature. That is only shipping in Chrome 100; > developers need more time to try it out. In addition, some issues have been > identified with WebTransport that are prompting us to re-evaluate > alternatives. In the meantime, keeping the trial going helps "staunch the > bleeding" and provides a channel for discussing plans with affected web > developers. > > > Ongoing technical constraints > > None. > > > 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 deprecation report is filed against the initiator > website's Reporting API, if so configured. 3. An issue is 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. > > > Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, Mac, > Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Android WebView)?Yes > > 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 113 > OriginTrial desktop first 94 > DevTrial on desktop 86 > OriginTrial Android last 113 > 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/cPiRNjFoCag/m/DxEEN9-6BQAJ > > > 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/CAG-zKU_1bPpOg-fexyo%2BXtMP%3D5_M4eKyeTPyWMD07EvUarogUA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAG-zKU_1bPpOg-fexyo%2BXtMP%3D5_M4eKyeTPyWMD07EvUarogUA%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/CAL5BFfUq7cvTnu5xRgKGdWxsDsf0mFuxKeY1at3x-QV6L4A9Sw%40mail.gmail.com.
