LGTM3
On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 11:43 PM Yoav Weiss wrote:
> LGTM2
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:44 PM Daniel Bratell
> wrote:
>
>> LGTM1
>>
>> There will be some day late in 2024, early in 2025 that will be the death
>> of many cookies. I now believe the risk of that being a problem is low
>>
LGTM2
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:44 PM Daniel Bratell wrote:
> LGTM1
>
> There will be some day late in 2024, early in 2025 that will be the death
> of many cookies. I now believe the risk of that being a problem is low
> enough.
>
> /Daniel
> On 2023-09-13 13:12, Ari Chivukula wrote:
>
>
LGTM1
There will be some day late in 2024, early in 2025 that will be the
death of many cookies. I now believe the risk of that being a problem is
low enough.
/Daniel
On 2023-09-13 13:12, Ari Chivukula wrote:
Re-opening this since it's been a month and we're a week after the
September 6th
Re-opening this since it's been a month and we're a week after the
September 6th cliff where cookies in stable that were limited to 400 days
as of M104 start expiring (if they were not subsequently renewed).
I haven't seen any negative feedback or questions around unexpected cookie
expirations in
I have no objections to delaying until M119. I'll check back in a week or
two after the September 6 cliff when cookies in stable that were limited to
400 days as of M104 start expiring. It's important to note we will only be
able to discuss the presence of lack of bug reports from sites and users
Perhaps we could delay this change until M119 as I understand that the
first cookies that were set more than 400 days ago are due to expire in
the M118 window. That should give us some time to understand the impact
in more concrete terms and mitigate some of the impact, were it to turn
out to
It's true we don't have a lot of data on the impact of this specifically,
but part of that is due to 400 day lag between enforcement and anyone in
prod feeling the effects. We could try to produce data on the amount of
cookies already in the store that would be newly capped, but that won't
really
So my assumption is the pessimistic one that most sites won't notice
this policy change even if we publish posts about it. And even if users
and sites can survive lost cookies, it might still be a disruption that
was unexpected and unwanted. But I don't have any good idea of how
disruptive and
I guess I'm a little confused on the direction of the conversation. If a
user starts using chrome today no cookie can set an expiration date more
than 400 days in the future, so all sites must already adapt to that
present reality.
Some users with cookies stored before this limit was imposed
I like the idea of automatically clearing out unused cookies, but I am
unclear if that is what happens here.
In an hypothetical scenario, a user of website awesomeapp.tv will make
some customization the first time they are there, and the site will
store that customization in a cookie with an
According to measurements in Chrome, of all cookies set, about 20% request
an Expires/Max-Age further than 400 days in the future. Of that 20%: half
target 2 years, a quarter target 10 years or more, and the remainder are
spread over the rest of the range.
Keep in mind this is looking at the
Hey Ari,
It isn't clear to me that the change in the RFC is a motivator to make this
change, or that it reduces potential risk.
There are details here will matter a lot to the risk profile. IIRC, we'll
be going first with regards to the lifetime of first-party, server-set
cookies? Do we have
12 matches
Mail list logo
