As a long-time user of HTTPS-first mode, I'm excited to see this ship ASAP!
On Wed, May 31, 2023, 5:29 a.m. 'Mike West' via blink-dev < blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 1:32 AM Chris Thompson <cth...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 3:36 AM Mike West <mk...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> I am enthusiastic about this (and not just because it should allow us to >>> deprecate/remove `Upgrade-Insecure-Requests`). A few comments inline: >>> >>> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 1:13 AM Chris Thompson <cth...@chromium.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Contact emailscth...@chromium.org, dadr...@google.com >>>> >>>> Explainer >>>> https://github.com/dadrian/https-upgrade/blob/main/explainer.md >>>> >>>> Specificationhttps://github.com/whatwg/fetch/pull/1655 >>>> >>> >>> Thanks for putting this together! I'll leave some comments on the PR. >>> Given that we haven't gotten any feedback from Fetch editors, it might be >>> prudent to let them take a pass before locking in our current behavior. >>> >> >> Yes, hopefully we can get some feedback, but I'm optimistic that we >> won't be locking in behavior if we ship this as it should hopefully be not >> site or user visible, so if we need to change the behavior to align >> cross-browser we can iterate. >> > > I left a few comments last week. I think the PR needs some work before we > can reasonably expect it to land in Fetch. > > Do we have tests in place for this behavior in Web Platform Tests? >>> https://wpt.fyi/results/mixed-content/tentative/autoupgrades?label=experimental&label=master&aligned >>> holds some tests for subresources, but I didn't see any around >>> navigation or fallback behavior (which seems like it might need some WPT >>> infrastructure change to produce a domain that's only served over HTTP). >>> >> >> We do not have Web Platform Tests but we can look into adding them. >> Currently this is implemented in //chrome which I think might make this >> more difficult (my understanding is that the WPT suite is run against >> content_shell rather than chrome). We are currently relying on browser >> tests for our integration testing. >> > > WPT is a pretty important part of shipping features that affect the > platform. It would be ideal if we could share these tests with our friends > at other vendors (and update existing tests that might be expecting > different behavior). Shifting the implementation to //content to make that > possible would also have the advantage of helping other Chromium embedders > ship this feature, which would be excellent for consistency in the project. > Note that the official WPT results on wpt.fyi are using full Chrome builds. IIRC there are other features that require Chrome. I personally only consider having WPTs passing on upstream infra to be blocking I2S. @Panos Astithas <pastit...@google.com> can say more authoritatively. +1 to the benefits of having this in content, but I personally think that's outside the scope of API owners so not something that should block an I2S. > Summary >>>> >>>> Automatically and optimistically upgrade all main-frame navigations to >>>> HTTPS, with fast fallback to HTTP. >>>> >>>> >>>> Blink componentInternals>Network>SSL >>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Internals%3ENetwork%3ESSL> >>>> >>>> TAG reviewFetch change process does not mention a TAG review, >>>> therefore this is N/A (https://github.com/whatwg/fetch#pull-requests) >>>> >>> >>> Blink's process does mention a TAG review. I think it would be a good >>> idea to put this in front of them. I also think they will appreciate it, >>> since it's directly in line with their previous guidance (e.g. >>> https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/web-https). >>> >>> >> >> Sure, we can file a TAG review. I'll update this thread once that's done. >> >> >>> TAG review statusNot applicable >>>> >>>> Risks >>>> >>>> >>>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Gecko*: Positive ( >>>> https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/800) Firefox is >>>> offering a similar feature already in their private browsing mode by >>>> default >>>> >>>> *WebKit*: No signal ( >>>> https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/185) >>>> >>>> *Web developers*: No signals. This feature is not exposed directly to >>>> web developers or users. However, HTTPS adoption is now standard practice >>>> (>90% of page loads in Chrome use HTTPS), and automatically upgrading >>>> navigations to HTTPS would avoid unnecessary redirects from HTTP to HTTPS >>>> for site owners. The `upgrade-insecure-requests` header has some similar >>>> functionality, and according to HTTP-Archive is found on ~6% of all >>>> requests. >>>> >>>> *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? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Debuggability >>>> >>>> Chrome will upgrade these navigations to HTTPS using a 307 internal >>>> redirect, which will be visible in the Network panel of Developer Tools. >>>> >>> >>> For HSTS, we synthesize a `Non-Authoritative-Reason` header on the >>> synthetic redirect that tells developers why the redirect happened. Is that >>> a pattern y'all will follow here as well? If so, it's probably a good idea >>> to document it somewhere; I don't think we've explained that header well. :) >>> >> >> Good idea. I'll get a CL up to add this to our implementation, and it >> seems reasonable to merge back to M115. We can include a mention of it in >> any public facing documentation we write about this. I'm also looking into >> whether we can add NetLog events for the upgrade and fallback steps which >> could help with triaging bug reports. >> > > Thanks! > > Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, Mac, >>>> Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Android WebView)?No >>>> >>>> Currently not available on Android WebView. We are implementing this >>>> first for Chrome and will consider bringing this to WebView (likely as an >>>> embedder opt-in) as follow up work. >>>> >>>> >>>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >>>> ?No >>>> >>>> Flag namehttps-upgrades >>>> >>>> Requires code in //chrome?True >>>> >>> >>> Can you spell out what's required here? Just enterprise policy work, or >>> are there other things embedders would need to implement to make this >>> functionality work? >>> >> >> This feature is currently implemented in //chrome with some support code >> in content/'s NavigationRequest. I think it would be feasible to migrate >> the core of this into content/ -- we use an URLRequestLoaderInterceptor and >> a NavigationThrottle to implement the upgrading and fallback logic. This is >> currently shared with Chrome's HTTPS-First Mode (controlled by Chrome's >> "Always use secure connections" setting). If we did migrate this logic to >> content/, embedders would need to add their own support for at least (1) >> how to handle allowlisting hostnames, and (2) enterprise policies for >> enabling/disabling the feature and exempting hostnames. We do not have a >> design ready for making this change though. >> > > As mentioned above, it would be ideal for the pieces of this change that > affect the platform to be available in //content so they flow into > content_shell and other embedders. > >> >> >>> >>> >>>> Tracking bug >>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1394910 >>>> >>>> Launch bughttps://launch.corp.google.com/launch/4235192 >>>> >>>> Sample links >>>> http://example.com will upgrade to https://example.com. >>>> http://www.alwayshttp.com will upgrade to https://www.alwayshttp.com but >>>> fall back to http://www.alwayshttp.com because the site doesn't >>>> support HTTPS. >>>> >>>> Estimated milestones >>>> Shipping on desktop 115 >>>> Shipping on Android 115 >>>> >>>> We are planning to do a field trial to gradually roll out this feature >>>> to Chrome clients in Chrome 115. >>>> >>> >>> Over what time period do you expect to ramp up to 100%? If you expect it >>> to push beyond the M115 timeframe, it might be reasonable to frame this as >>> an intent to experiment to give folks a little more time to weigh in on the >>> Fetch PR. >>> >>> >> We are hoping to ramp up to 100% within M115, but it may end up >> completing in M116. >> >> (We could do an I2E, but it did not seem like a good fit as there is no >> Origin Trial component, this does not require developer involvement, etc. >> Our understanding was even doing a non-OT 1% Stable rollout required >> sending an I2S and getting LGTMs from API OWNERS. Let us know if you think >> we should reassess our launch plan.) >> > > We do have an experimentation path for running a Finch experiment on > stable/beta users (confusingly(?) under "Origin Trial" > <https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/#:~:text=Depending%20on%20your,required%20before%20proceeding.> > in our documentation; we could probably improve that). > > I think I'd recommend that path to avoid any delays that might come up in > getting Fetch updated to support this feature. I'd LGTM an I2E @ 50% > beta/1% stable to gain confidence in the fallback mechanism at scale. For > I2S, I'm a little worried about the state of the spec and its eventual > interoperability across vendors. I'd like to get that hammered down before > making it harder to change details that developers might come to rely upon. > > -mike > > >> >> >> >>> 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). >>>> https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/pull/1655 >>>> >>>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/6056181032812544 >>>> >>>> Links to previous Intent discussionsIntent to prototype: >>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/mgJqym5-Xek/m/0EAN6v7CCQAJ >>>> >>>> This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status >>>> <https://chromestatus.com/>. >>>> >>> -- > 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/CAKXHy%3DdPs5Spya9QBVmFYdeTJevs6jML%3DNmU7SEApOshNRmHCg%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAKXHy%3DdPs5Spya9QBVmFYdeTJevs6jML%3DNmU7SEApOshNRmHCg%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/CAFUtAY-EZ%2BJ0FQMyTmfx-nzbStXFdDYLAnFZQ0U5Dr5sgNvdmA%40mail.gmail.com.
