Understood, thanks for clarifying that, Chris!

On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 5:28 PM Chris Harrelson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 12:14 AM Yoav Weiss <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 6:57:53 AM UTC+2 Johann Hofmann wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Mike and Yoav, thank you for the guidance.
>>>
>>> Regarding public use counters, devtools messaging, reporting and getting
>>> more precise information on domains:
>>> I'm working on getting a devtools deprecation warning in place, and the
>>> other pieces should be easy to integrate from there, according to sbingler.
>>> Happy to report back once that's done.
>>>
>>
>> That's great, thanks!!
>>
>>
>>>
>>> > What's the deprecation period you had in mind?
>>>
>>> Usage is quite low but there's also no particular rush on this, so I was
>>> thinking of a deprecation period of two releases after we get developer
>>> warnings in place, which might happen by M105, so estimated M107.
>>>
>>
>> Sounds reasonable.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> > Our typical process for getting such signals is
>>> https://bit.ly/blink-signals
>>>
>>> Huh! I read that document and interpreted "Statement made through an
>>> Official Standards Process for that implementation" as given since both
>>> Mozilla and Apple voiced their support in the HTTP WG. If this is the case,
>>> asking them to confirm via their standards positions channels feels
>>> somewhat noisy, no?
>>>
>>
>> IIRC, WebKit folks were fine with quoting support from webkit engineers
>> as a replacement for an official request, but Mozilla were not. In this
>> case, this may be sufficient.
>> Chris - do I remember correctly? Should we add such an exception to our
>> docs?
>>
>
> Unfortunately this doesn't count as a signal. An email to webkit-dev is
> required, with response, to count as anything other than "No signals". I'm
> glad they agreed to this change in the HTTP WG though, that's a good sign.
>
> Also, I can see how "Official Standards Process" can be construed as an
> ambiguous term; I've clarified to "Official Standards Signal Process" in
> the signals document that it means the process spelled out in the last
> section there.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> > At the same time, as you said above, Mozilla is already shipping
>>> <https://wpt.fyi/results/cookies/domain?label=experimental&label=master&aligned>
>>>  the
>>> behavior you want to align on here.
>>>
>>> Right, I'll update the status to "Shipping", apologies.
>>>
>>> > Can you send a request to webkit-dev, letting them know that we're
>>> moving on that front?
>>>
>>> I'm happy to do that, or alternatively ping John on the GitHub issue if
>>> you agree with me that this is preferable (being more targeted and less
>>> noisy) to an email to webkit-dev.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 3:09 PM Mike Taylor <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/3/22 6:42 AM, Yoav Weiss wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What's the deprecation period you had in mind?
>>>>
>>>> Also, from a technical perspective, it might be worthwhile to talk to
>>>> folks that did past cookie related deprecations, to make sure you're
>>>> reusing the same path for reporting them to the devtools. Also also, it'd
>>>> be great if that deprecation would result in Deprecation Reports, if at all
>>>> feasible.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 12:21 PM Johann Hofmann <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Contact emails [email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>> Explainer None
>>>>>
>>>>> Specification
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis/#section-5.5
>>>>>
>>>>> Summary
>>>>>
>>>>> To align with the latest specification in RFC 6265bis, Chromium will
>>>>> reject cookies with a "Domain" attribute that contains a non-ASCII
>>>>> character (e.g. Domain=éxample.com
>>>>> <http://xn--domain%3Dxample-hhb.com/>).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Blink component Blink>Network
>>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3ENetwork>
>>>>>
>>>>> Motivation
>>>>>
>>>>> Support for IDN domain attributes in cookies has been long
>>>>> unspecified, with Chromium, Safari and Firefox all behaving differently.
>>>>> https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1707 fixes this
>>>>> issue by standardizing Firefox's behavior of rejecting cookies with
>>>>> non-ASCII domain attributes. Since Chromium has previously accepted
>>>>> non-ASCII characters and tried to convert them to normalized punycode for
>>>>> storage, we will now apply stricter rules and require valid ASCII 
>>>>> (punycode
>>>>> if applicable) domain attributes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Initial public proposal
>>>>>
>>>>> TAG review
>>>>>
>>>>> TAG review status Not applicable
>>>>>
>>>>> Risks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Interoperability and Compatibility
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a general risk of breakage compared to past Chromium versions
>>>>> from rejecting previously accepted cookies, but UMA measurements show the
>>>>> percentage of cookies with non-ASCII characters (including potentially
>>>>> invalid cookies) to be below 0.0001%.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any public use counters you could share?
>>>> Or is that something we couldn't add due to cookies being processed
>>>> outside the renderer?
>>>>
>>>> Usage is quite low, but it would be good to know if there are any
>>>> patterns that might affect certain locales more than others. Is there any
>>>> way we can get a sample list of domains to spot check?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> This change improves interoperability by aligning with what Firefox is
>>>>> shipping and what Safari aims to ship as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Gecko*: Positive (
>>>>> https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1707)
>>>>>
>>>>> *WebKit*: Positive (
>>>>> https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1707)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Our typical process for getting such signals is
>>>> https://bit.ly/blink-signals
>>>> At the same time, as you said above, Mozilla is already shipping
>>>> <https://wpt.fyi/results/cookies/domain?label=experimental&label=master&aligned>
>>>> the behavior you want to align on here.
>>>> Can you send a request to webkit-dev, letting them know that we're
>>>> moving on that front?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> *Web developers*: No signals
>>>>>
>>>>> *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
>>>>>
>>>>> TBD
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests
>>>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md>
>>>>> ? Yes
>>>>>
>>>>> Flag name
>>>>>
>>>>> Requires code in //chrome? False
>>>>>
>>>>> Tracking bug
>>>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1296537
>>>>>
>>>>> Estimated milestones
>>>>>
>>>>> No milestones specified
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status
>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5534966262792192
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 [email protected].
>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAD_OO4hVsjFA06ytmbNvn-bfUXDGur0ESSMxEO-o-96sCNAiOQ%40mail.gmail.com
>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAD_OO4hVsjFA06ytmbNvn-bfUXDGur0ESSMxEO-o-96sCNAiOQ%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/CAL5BFfUdCoWru_bd826snHc24eHk7uUYW_HJF-ox0ihaqanX9g%40mail.gmail.com
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfUdCoWru_bd826snHc24eHk7uUYW_HJF-ox0ihaqanX9g%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/33018c98-5b51-4f8e-8f1c-411d8154ba33n%40chromium.org
>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/33018c98-5b51-4f8e-8f1c-411d8154ba33n%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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAD_OO4gqEvW-C5ENR5HuNTbNePCyH7ZPCRVtshRrk7e%2BaNmsvQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to