Hey Alexandru, Thanks for following up. We are still at 10% at the moment. We noticed some regressions in UMA metrics which we have contacted owners (just two teams) to see if they are a concern, and if they are worth blocking the release to 50%. Once I get the green light from them, I will begin the rollout to 50%.
Thanks, Dylan On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 8:57 AM Alexandru Mihai <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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/CAMCNMFQPcUOwitUVD%2BaiC3cRxKw-ceu4YJfz%3DaCa0Dj1%3Dsbfcg%40mail.gmail.com.
