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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> LGTM3 >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 5:24 AM Yoav Weiss <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> LGTM2 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 10:43 AM Johann Hofmann <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 5:37 PM Chris Harrelson < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 10:34 AM 'Johann Hofmann' via blink-dev < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Yoav, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 5:28 AM Yoav Weiss <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 10:57 PM 'Dylan Cutler' via blink-dev < >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Contact emails: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected], [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>>>>>>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>>>>>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>>>>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>>>> 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAMCNMFTZ8V9jnWqP20XD0rXTsyuQX%3DVyu6J7nP_mjmjphTFPdA%40mail.gmail.com.
