Thanks all. https://crbug.com/1478065 is exactly the issue some of our customers encountered. But unfortunately it didn't give any clue to debug why chrome did not obey the header even if its indeed present though more than once. Hence, it will be helpful to add some warnings or something to indicate on DevTools console why chrome could not interpret the header properly.
On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 10:39 PM W. James MacLean <wjmacl...@google.com> wrote: > Thanks creis@ ... I learned something new today! > > [image: GoogleAnimated.gif] > > ⭘ W. James MacLean > > ⭘ Software Engineer > > ⭘ Google Waterloo > <http://www.google.ca/about/careers/locations/waterloo/#tab=tab-gallery>, > Canada > > > > On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 at 12:51, Charlie Reis <cr...@google.com> wrote: > >> Actually, I think that's not quite true-- there was a recent report about >> duplicate headers in https://crbug.com/1478065, and it turns out to be >> required by spec to not allow duplicates. (See comment 13 >> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1478065#c13> on >> that bug.) I think it will be necessary to only return one copy of the >> header, and there's a bug filed <https://crbug.com/1484583> to have >> DevTools display a warning in that case. >> >> Charlie >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 9:30 AM 'W. James MacLean' via blink-dev < >> blink-dev@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> While it would obviously be better for the header to only be sent once >>> (less bytes transmitted), I don't think sending it twice should cause a >>> problem so long as both headers are the same, e.g. they both specify "?0". >>> If you're seeing the problem with two headers but not with one, then that's >>> a bug. In that case filing a bug report at crbug.com, including as much >>> information as possible, would be appreciated. >>> >>> I tried this with a simple test case on my own server, and it seems to >>> work fine. >>> >>> [image: GoogleAnimated.gif] >>> >>> ⭘ W. James MacLean >>> >>> ⭘ Software Engineer >>> >>> ⭘ Google Waterloo >>> <http://www.google.ca/about/careers/locations/waterloo/#tab=tab-gallery>, >>> Canada >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 at 01:41, Madanagopal Damodharan < >>> dmadanago...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks James. We are able to add the header from our server's servlet >>>> filter code. It now appends the header for each response including static >>>> html files. It seems to be working fine so far. There are instances where >>>> it still gets blocked when a link is opened on new window. I believe we >>>> need to make sure the new window response contains the header as well, >>>> right? Also, if the header gets duplicated i.e. if the response contains >>>> the same header twice, it does not work. It looks as if the header is not >>>> sent at all. Is this how it is supposed to behave? >>>> >>>> On Monday, 25 September 2023 at 20:23:51 UTC+5:30 W. James MacLean >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> No, I think you need to get the server to send the header. Once you >>>>> get as far as the meta tags, the origin's isolation state has already been >>>>> decided. I'm not an expert on servers, but my experience in specifying >>>>> headers to be sent with static pages is to edit the .htaccess file in the >>>>> directory with the content, and include >>>>> >>>>> HEADER add Origin-Agent-Cluster: ?0 >>>>> >>>>> But the exact details will depend on your setup. >>>>> >>>>> For Apache: https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/howto/htaccess.html >>>>> >>>>> [image: GoogleAnimated.gif] >>>>> >>>>> ⭘ W. James MacLean >>>>> >>>>> ⭘ Software Engineer >>>>> >>>>> ⭘ Google Waterloo >>>>> <http://www.google.ca/about/careers/locations/waterloo/#tab=tab-gallery>, >>>>> Canada >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 19 Sept 2023 at 23:40, Madanagopal Damodharan < >>>>> dmadan...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> This helped us identify the response that did not have the header. We >>>>>> noticed that we have a static html called signon.html as our first entry >>>>>> into the application. Since this is a static html, our servlet changes to >>>>>> add response header does not hit when users invoke this signon.html. I >>>>>> think Chrome puts this origin into Origin-keyed cluster at this point and >>>>>> hence when users login and encounter document.domain, they get the error >>>>>> blocked frame error. >>>>>> >>>>>> meta tags with http-equiv does not recognize this custom response >>>>>> header Origin-Agent-Cluster. Is there a way to add response headers in a >>>>>> static html page response? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 22:49:00 UTC+5:30 W. James MacLean >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps try this: >>>>>>> 1) open a new tab page (or about:blank if you prefer) >>>>>>> 2) right-click and select "Inspect" at the bottom of the popup menu >>>>>>> 3) in the DevTools menu at the top, click "Network" >>>>>>> 4) then check the "Preserve Logs" checkbox in the row under that menu >>>>>>> 5) finally, manually type the url for your app/site in the url bar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As your content loads, the DevTools window will populate with an (in >>>>>>> order) list of all the network transactions. You can click on each >>>>>>> element >>>>>>> in the list and see the response headers for each request. This should >>>>>>> help >>>>>>> you determine which request is missing the Origin-Agent-Cluster:?0 >>>>>>> header >>>>>>> and causing the origin keying to be applied for the tab. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let me know if that helps. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [image: GoogleAnimated.gif] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ⭘ W. James MacLean >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ⭘ Software Engineer >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ⭘ Google Waterloo >>>>>>> <http://www.google.ca/about/careers/locations/waterloo/#tab=tab-gallery>, >>>>>>> Canada >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Sept 2023 at 12:44, Madanagopal Damodharan < >>>>>>> dmadan...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An update on the issue I am facing: We have a static html in web >>>>>>>> server called signon.html. Users access this static html page first >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> has a refresh directive with content=1. As soon as the user invokes >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> html page first time from the origin, this redirects to a login form >>>>>>>> page. >>>>>>>> This response contains the header too. But still chrome console says >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> origin was in origin-keyed cluster. If I change the refresh directive >>>>>>>> content=5, it takes 5 sec to redirect from signon.html to login form, >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> time I don't get the console warning. Now I can login and dont see any >>>>>>>> errors. I am not sure why the refresh directive 5 works but not 1. Is >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> because Chrome could not capture request and place the origin in >>>>>>>> appropriate cluster within its 1 second? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Modified the CONTENT=5 from CONTENT=1 in the below line to get it >>>>>>>> working - <meta HTTP-EQUIV='Refresh' CONTENT='5; >>>>>>>> URL=../psp/ps/?cmd=login'> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Any thoughts? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, 10 September 2023 at 20:53:42 UTC+5:30 Madanagopal >>>>>>>> Damodharan wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for response. In my case, I am getting the error when a new >>>>>>>> tab is opened from an existing tab. My existing tab did not throw this >>>>>>>> error whereas the new tab shows the error on the first request itself. >>>>>>>> So >>>>>>>> based on what you mentioned, my parent tab should have been part of >>>>>>>> Origin-Keyed cluster, right? I am seeing console warning as follows on >>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>> new tab that was opened from an existing tab: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "The page did not request an Origin-Keyed agent cluster but was put >>>>>>>> in one anyway because the origin had previously been placed in an >>>>>>>> origin-keyed agent cluster. Update your headers to uniformly request >>>>>>>> origin-keying for all pages on the origin" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am currently trying to figure out which server response did not >>>>>>>> have the header ""Origin-Agent-Cluster: ?0" that led my pages to get in >>>>>>>> origin-keyed cluster. Is there a way (debug tool etc) I can check which >>>>>>>> response decided Origin-Keying? I think this will be crucial for >>>>>>>> applications to debug the issues. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One other question: My parent tab has a wss (web socket) request >>>>>>>> that does not have its response with this OAC header. Do we need the >>>>>>>> header >>>>>>>> in wss response as well? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 7 September 2023 at 23:00:32 UTC+5:30 W. James MacLean >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the application is getting loaded inside a tab that has >>>>>>>> previously loaded other pages from the same origin (i.e. pages not >>>>>>>> part of >>>>>>>> the app) that do not have the header, then for consistency the new >>>>>>>> loads >>>>>>>> will get OAC isolation even if the header is present. Essentially, the >>>>>>>> first time the tab loads anything from a particular origin, that >>>>>>>> determines >>>>>>>> how it will treat the origin for the remainder of the tab's lifetime. >>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>> consistency will also extend to other tabs opened by the tab (as they >>>>>>>> live >>>>>>>> in the same "BrowsingInstance"). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also, there may be issues where pages can be loaded from cache >>>>>>>> without the ?0 version of the header, so two useful steps would be >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) Clear the cache, and >>>>>>>> 2) open the app directly in a newly opened tab. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't think the header needs to be sent on script/css/image >>>>>>>> requests, as they're used within the context of the .html resource that >>>>>>>> should have the header. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [image: GoogleAnimated.gif] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ⭘ W. James MacLean >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ⭘ Software Engineer >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ⭘ Google Waterloo >>>>>>>> <http://www.google.ca/about/careers/locations/waterloo/#tab=tab-gallery>, >>>>>>>> Canada >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Sept 2023 at 11:27, Madanagopal Damodharan < >>>>>>>> dmadan...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is the feature launched in Chrome 115 as updated in >>>>>>>> https://developer.chrome.com/blog/document-domain-setter-deprecation? >>>>>>>> I have some of the customers reporting inconsistent behavior. Our >>>>>>>> application sends "Origin-Agent-Cluster: ?0" in response headers >>>>>>>> to opt-out of Origin Agent clusters since we rely on document.domain. >>>>>>>> Is >>>>>>>> this header needed only on document requests or even for script, >>>>>>>> image, css >>>>>>>> requests? For some customer, their pages get inside origin-keyed >>>>>>>> cluster >>>>>>>> even though the responses contain the header "Origin-Agent-Cluster: >>>>>>>> ?0". Is there a bug in the chrome behavior that puts pages in specific >>>>>>>> cluster? How do we debug what caused the pages to get inside >>>>>>>> origin-keyed >>>>>>>> cluster? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Friday, 26 May 2023 at 20:55:52 UTC+5:30 Eiji Kitamura wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> @Maud Nalpas is taking over the DevRel work. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 12:21 AM Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the update Daniel. Still LGTM. Good luck! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 10:25 AM Daniel Vogelheim < >>>>>>>> voge...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello all, it's been a while... The bug reports should now be >>>>>>>> resolved, and we'd like to have another go at this in the M115 >>>>>>>> milestone. >>>>>>>> That is: Remain at 50% on beta; starting with 115 ramp up on stable to >>>>>>>> 1% / >>>>>>>> 10% / 50% / 100%, every 14d. Let's hope it sticks this time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 3:54 PM Daniel Vogelheim < >>>>>>>> voge...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello all, I'm afraid I have to delay this a bit more. :( >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We have a bug report (tracked in crbug.com/1429587) that breaks >>>>>>>> existing apps. The important thing here is that it does not break >>>>>>>> document.domain setting and subsequent cross-origin access, but that >>>>>>>> instead -- if the conditions are just right; or arguably just wrong -- >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> app can get into a state where same-origin accesses are mistakenly >>>>>>>> blocked. >>>>>>>> Apparently an app can get into a state where frames within the same >>>>>>>> page >>>>>>>> are inconsistently assigned to agent clusters (i.e., frames in the same >>>>>>>> origin end up in different processes), and thus subsequent accesses >>>>>>>> within >>>>>>>> that origin may fail. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My plan right now is to leave this on at 50% beta, but to not >>>>>>>> proceed to any stable releases at any percentage. I'll update this >>>>>>>> thread >>>>>>>> when I have a better handle on the bug and can suggest a good way to >>>>>>>> proceed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 5:12 PM Eiji Kitamura <age...@google.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> FYI, the enterprise bit has been added to the article. >>>>>>>> https://developer.chrome.com/blog/immutable-document-domain/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 1:21 AM Brandon Heenan <bhe...@google.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We'll make the update in the enterprise release notes too. Thanks >>>>>>>> for keeping us in the loop >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 9:46 AM Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks so much Eiji! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 3:06 AM Eiji Kitamura <age...@google.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've updated the blog post >>>>>>>> <https://developer.chrome.com/blog/immutable-document-domain/> stating >>>>>>>> Chrome 111 is where we ship the feature, but looks like it's rolling >>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>> through 111 and 112? >>>>>>>> I'll update the blog post to mention >>>>>>>> `OriginAgentClusterDefaultEnabled` enterprise policy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 1:37 AM Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the update Daniel, good luck! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In case others, like me, have missed or forgotten the long history >>>>>>>> of this difficult deprecation and what it means for web developers, >>>>>>>> this blog >>>>>>>> post is a good summary >>>>>>>> <https://developer.chrome.com/blog/immutable-document-domain/>. >>>>>>>> One critical thing it doesn't mention, but probably should, is that >>>>>>>> the OriginAgentClusterDefaultEnabled >>>>>>>> enterprise policy >>>>>>>> <https://chromeenterprise.google/policies/#OriginAgentClusterDefaultEnabled> >>>>>>>> can also be used to revert the default on managed devices (though it >>>>>>>> looks >>>>>>>> like the launching milestone needs to be updated there too). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rick >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 9:53 AM 'Daniel Vogelheim' via blink-dev < >>>>>>>> blin...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We've now handled the bugs we've discovered, and I would like to >>>>>>>> make another attempt at launching. I'll follow the plan that was >>>>>>>> approved >>>>>>>> here, but two milestones later: Launch to 50% beta in M111 (or late >>>>>>>> M110, >>>>>>>> if I can still catch a bit of that release cycle), and then ramp on >>>>>>>> stable >>>>>>>> once M112 is out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 6:36 PM Daniel Vogelheim < >>>>>>>> voge...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An update: Unfortunately we have discovered a bug with this >>>>>>>> feature, just as I was getting ready to enable it. The bug also affects >>>>>>>> pages that have not even set document.domain. Since I have now missed a >>>>>>>> substantial portion of the 109 beta cycle I'd like to delay the roll >>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>> once more, and shift it by one milestone (or two; depending on when >>>>>>>> everything is fixed). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On the positive side: Recently the last of the previously >>>>>>>> identified big document.domain users, that together accounted for >>>>>>>> about 50% >>>>>>>> of remaining usage, has dropped their usage. So current usage is lower >>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>> previously reported. See the usage dip around late November at >>>>>>>> deprecate.it (1st graph). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 5:42 PM Mike Taylor <mike...@chromium.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> LGTM3 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11/10/22 11:18 AM, Chris Harrelson wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> LGTM2 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 4:19 AM Yoav Weiss <yoav...@chromium.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> LGTM1 to roll this out to 50% of Beta/Dev/Canary for either M108 or >>>>>>>> M109, and carefully roll this out for M110, once it hits stable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 7:05 PM Daniel Vogelheim <voge...@google.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 6:10 PM Mike Taylor <mike...@chromium.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10/27/22 11:49 PM, 'Daniel Vogelheim' via blink-dev wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The approval for the Intent To Ship for Origin Isolation By >>>>>>>> Default / Deprecate document.domain >>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/_oRc19PjpFo/> >>>>>>>> asks for a separate intent for the actual default change >>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/_oRc19PjpFo/m/Ybgtf3JfAQAJ>. >>>>>>>> This is that separate intent. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A summary of what happened so far: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Shipping Origin Isolation by Default (and thereby deprecating >>>>>>>> document.domain) has security benefits, but compatibility risk. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - We added warnings to the developer console and issues panel, >>>>>>>> published a blog post, and engaged in direct outreach. This has >>>>>>>> resulted in >>>>>>>> substantial, measurable reduction of usage. Some sites keep using >>>>>>>> document.domain, but have mitigated the deprecation with other means. >>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>> makes the risk difficult to measure. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Sampling of sites with document.domain usage and manual >>>>>>>> inspection yields a potential breakage estimate at ~0.015% of page >>>>>>>> views. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What we're asking for here is: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Enable the feature at 50% for beta (+ dev + canary) during M109, >>>>>>>> as a "last call" for web site authors. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This sounds like a good idea. Is there any reason we couldn't go to >>>>>>>> 50% in M108 as well (or are you trying to avoid breakage over the >>>>>>>> winter >>>>>>>> holidays)? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No reason. I'd be happy to go to beta as soon as I receive the >>>>>>>> lgtms. I had conservatively budgeted that to be 109. :-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Another question: do we have enterprise policies available for this >>>>>>>> change? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes; the policy is here: OriginAgentClusterDefaultEnabled >>>>>>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:components/policy/resources/templates/policy_definitions/Miscellaneous/OriginAgentClusterDefaultEnabled.yaml> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Launch on stable on M110. (~ Feb '23, so >12 weeks out from today) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Contact emails va...@chromium.org, voge...@chromium.org >>>>>>>> Specification Explainer: >>>>>>>> https://github.com/mikewest/deprecating-document-domain HTML Spec >>>>>>>> draft: https://github.com/whatwg/html/compare/main...otherdaniel:dd >>>>>>>> API spec Yes >>>>>>>> Summary >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is a follow-on to the Intent to Ship: Origin Isolation By >>>>>>>> Default / Deprecate document.domain >>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/_oRc19PjpFo/>. >>>>>>>> We'd >>>>>>>> like to ship this in M110, stable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Summary (of the underlying change) Change the default behavior of >>>>>>>> the Origin-Agent-Cluster: header / document.domain settability. >>>>>>>> Presently, pages within Chromium have site-keyed agent clusters by >>>>>>>> default, unless the Origin-Agent-Cluster: header is explicitly set to >>>>>>>> true. >>>>>>>> This accommodates pages or frames which want to access each other's >>>>>>>> state, >>>>>>>> despite being on different origins (but within a site). This is fine >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> any pages that wish to do so, but because a page *might* set >>>>>>>> document.domain later on, Chromium currently must use site-keyed agent >>>>>>>> clusters for *all* pages by default even though the overwhelming >>>>>>>> majority >>>>>>>> of pages do not ever make use of this (mis-)feature. In turn, this >>>>>>>> requires >>>>>>>> Chromium to use sites as the basis for renderer process isolation (via >>>>>>>> Site >>>>>>>> Isolation), which exposes origins to same-site but cross-origin attacks >>>>>>>> involving compromised renderer processes or the "Spectre" family of >>>>>>>> side-channel attacks. >>>>>>>> This proposal changes the default behaviour of >>>>>>>> Origin-Agent-Cluster. From a developer's point of view, the new default >>>>>>>> matches "Origin-Agent-Cluster: ?1". The initial implementation will use >>>>>>>> origin-keyed agent clusters for all (non-opted out) origins, without >>>>>>>> changing how many processes Chromium creates. Over time, we can then >>>>>>>> adapt >>>>>>>> Chromium's isolation strategy towards origin-keyed processes without >>>>>>>> further affecting web-visible behaviour. >>>>>>>> The developer-visible aspect of this is that for pages with >>>>>>>> origin-keyed agent clusters, document.domain is no longer settable. >>>>>>>> Thus, >>>>>>>> we have marked this intent as a deprecation. >>>>>>>> Note that this proposal is about the default. Both modes - >>>>>>>> site-keyed or origin-keyed agent clusters - remain available to any >>>>>>>> site, >>>>>>>> but origin-keyed agent clusters change from opt-in to opt-out. The >>>>>>>> current >>>>>>>> behaviour remains available by setting "Origin-Agent-Cluster: ?0". >>>>>>>> Blink component Blink>SecurityFeature >>>>>>>> TAG review https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/564 >>>>>>>> Risks: Interoperability and Compatibility >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are compatibility risks, which we have reduced with outreach >>>>>>>> and warnings, and we want to mitigate further by launching at 50% of >>>>>>>> beta >>>>>>>> first. An extended discussion of the risk (including attempts at >>>>>>>> quantitative assessment) can be found in the original intent to >>>>>>>> ship >>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/_oRc19PjpFo/> >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gecko: Standards position request >>>>>>>> <https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/601>. >>>>>>>> ("Worth prototyping") >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WebKit: >>>>>>>> https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2021-December/032067.html >>>>>>>> (No signals.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Web developers: No signals. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Activation - Deprecation plan >>>>>>>> M109: Enable "Origin Agent Cluster by Default" for 50% of page >>>>>>>> loads on beta, dev, and canary. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> M110: Enable "Origin Agent Cluster by Default" on stable. >>>>>>>> Security This change should be security-positive, since setting >>>>>>>> document.domain will not have any impact on the origin of the document >>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>> more. >>>>>>>> Debuggability A deprecation warning has been added to DevTools >>>>>>>> console and to the issues panel in M98. This warning will file a >>>>>>>> deprecation report as well using the Reporting API, if so configured. >>>>>>>> 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/+/master/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >>>>>>>> ? This is covered by Origin-keyed Agent Cluster tests >>>>>>>> <https://wpt.live/html/browsers/origin/origin-keyed-agent-clusters/> >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> Tracking bug https://crbug.com/1139851 >>>>>>>> Launch bug https://crbug.com/1246823 >>>>>>>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>>>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5428079583297536 (document.domain >>>>>>>> setter deprecation) >>>>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/features/5683766104162304 (Origin-keyed >>>>>>>> agent clusters) >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> 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+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CALG6KPNEMgvrOehp5%2Bf48yQ62pY3xqXqATPNxWZ6aYQ%2BXeHHAg%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CALG6KPNEMgvrOehp5%2Bf48yQ62pY3xqXqATPNxWZ6aYQ%2BXeHHAg%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+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfW0vt%2BzXxGf_f7YBF2Lq1K1y5F_VJMtK6whuSiQX9_t3g%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfW0vt%2BzXxGf_f7YBF2Lq1K1y5F_VJMtK6whuSiQX9_t3g%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+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CALG6KPPFMpseckt22K5bd%2BRsctwWihiwCdSA9vvCTZw_tOtT5A%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CALG6KPPFMpseckt22K5bd%2BRsctwWihiwCdSA9vvCTZw_tOtT5A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Eiji Kitamura / えーじ | Developer Advocate | @agektmr >>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/agektmr> | Office Location: Tokyo Shibuya >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Eiji Kitamura / えーじ | Developer Advocate | @agektmr >>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/agektmr> | Office Location: Tokyo Shibuya >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Eiji Kitamura / えーじ | Developer Advocate | @agektmr >>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/agektmr> | Office Location: Tokyo Shibuya >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> 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+...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/0aa8ac1f-6b52-425f-8e25-f09f55c9e0fdn%40chromium.org >>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/0aa8ac1f-6b52-425f-8e25-f09f55c9e0fdn%40chromium.org?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/CADAYvoc24scGp3XHZrC%3Dpg7zaUU5OeRLaM9NbS-hbvLRJ06XHQ%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CADAYvoc24scGp3XHZrC%3Dpg7zaUU5OeRLaM9NbS-hbvLRJ06XHQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- D.Madanagopal -- 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/CAHxeoW%2BtSDHv9vNkAWa5Sfd-QAabvJJzDg%2BFtmK2z%2BfdE7XvAQ%40mail.gmail.com.
