On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 9:54 PM Paul Jensen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yoav, > > Protected Audiences has been fortunate to have a ton of design > contributions and feedback, but consequently has a lot of issues filed. We > try to respond to all issues, as you can see by the discussion comments on > nearly all issues. I went through and triaged all the issues recently. I > closed many of them, created some labels and labeled many of them. Here’s > where I think the open issues stand: > > - > > 65 > > <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/labels/Non-breaking%20Feature%20Request> > I labeled “Non-breaking Feature Request”, meaning they’re requesting new > functionality that is unlikely to cause backwards compatibility issues. > - > > 29 <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/labels/spec> are spec related. > As Dominic said above, most of these changes are unlikely to break web > content. > - > > 8 <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/labels/Looking%20for%20feedback> > are seeking feedback rather than pointing to a problem. > - > > 4 <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/labels/compat%20concern> could > potentially break compatibility. I think for all of these we’ve decided to > not adopt the proposed changes or we’ve decided to adopt the proposed > changes but as part of our longer-term plans in the future. I should note > that recently we adopted many breaking changes to our API, but did so in a > way that supports backwards compatibility, so we can wean developers off of > the old APIs without causing immediate significant breakage. If we chose > to adopt some of these changes, I imagine we could do so in a similar > non-breaking way. > - > > 86 > > <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/issues?q=is%3Aopen+-label%3A%22Non-breaking+Feature+Request%22++-label%3Aspec+-label%3A%22Looking+for+feedback%22+-label%3A%22compat+concern%22> > didn’t fit well into a particular category: > - > > Some were questions seeking to clarify details of our timeline or > the explainer or design. > - > > Some were discussions that are mostly addressed but left open so we > don’t forget about remaining pieces. > - > > Some are open discussions or examples. > > I think it’s worth noting that our usage of the issue system differs from > those of many other folks who ship features: We tend to use the issues as > open forums as opposed to only leaving open issues that need to have > decisions made. Many of the issues predate the FLEDGE explainer and > represent design discussions that culminated in FLEDGE’s design. > Thanks for going over the issues!! To be clear, the number of issues is not a concern in itself, and is indeed an indication of the level of engagement this had. This list of compat-related issues <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/labels/compat%20concern> is the only relevant bit for this intent IMO. At the same time, it'd be good to settle these issues, or at least have a clear path towards future-compat around them, before shipping. WDYT? > I hope the labels I added make it clearer which are future enhancements > and not likely to break backwards compatibility. I honestly think over the > years before our Origin Trial and over the course of our lengthy Origin > Trial we’ve addressed all the feedback for core functionality in Protected > Audience and don’t anticipate breaking backwards compatibility in > significant ways. > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 3:56 AM Yoav Weiss <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Glancing at the open issues, I see 291 of them >> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/issues?page=2&q=is%3Aopen>.. Would >> it be possible to go over the issues and label them so that it's clearer >> which are about future enhancements, which are editorial and which may have >> an impact on the processing model or API shape in ways that can impact >> future compatibility? >> >> On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 8:00 PM Dominic Farolino <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> As the spec mentor for this feature I'll offer a spec maturity summary >>> <https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/#:~:text=If%20your%20specification%20isn%27t%20a%20modification%20of%20an%20existing%20specification%2C%20include%20a%20one%2Dline%20spec%20maturity%20summary%20from%20someone%20outside%20your%20team%20(like%20your%20spec%20mentor)%20who%20has%20done%20a%20review.>. >>> @Jeffrey Yasskin <[email protected]> and I reviewed the spec in >>> detail recently and were pleased with the improvements that the team worked >>> with us to make recently, especially with regards to: >>> >>> - >>> >>> Formalizing the interaction with times and dates >>> - >>> >>> Adding rigor to the in parallel work (and its interaction with the >>> main thread and the Script Runner realms) >>> - >>> >>> Fetch integration >>> - >>> >>> Specifying the conversions from internal spec data to JS objects >>> when calling into the Script Runners >>> <https://wicg.github.io/turtledove/#script-runners>, mostly by >>> increasing the use of WebIDL >>> >>> In a few of these points there is still work to be done, and we've been >>> filing >>> bugs <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/labels/spec> against the >>> specification for individual tasks that the team has committed to making >>> progress on in the very near future. The spec overall is not yet very >>> readable <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/issues/646>, which means >>> external reviewers will have to spend time to understand the flow before >>> they can give substantive feedback. From a completeness perspective, >>> the spec still has over a dozen "TODOs" (I expect that they’ll be finished >>> soon given how many have recently closed), including the bulk of the >>> integration >>> with Fenced Frames <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/pull/616>, whose >>> completion might help other browser engines notice new interoperability >>> issues. The team is completing these at a good pace, but this implies that >>> in addition to finishing pieces of the spec that document the current >>> implementation, there will probably be minor web-visible changes after >>> shipping in M115. However, most of these changes are unlikely to break web >>> content, and if anything bigger comes up, the Privacy Sandbox's general >>> tools for migrating their users should be effective. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 4:06 PM Paul Jensen <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> *Contact emails* >>>> >>>> [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] >>>> >>>> Explainer >>>> >>>> https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/blob/master/FLEDGE.m >>>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/blob/master/FLEDGE.md>d >>>> >>>> Specification >>>> >>>> https://wicg.github.io/turtledove >>>> >>>> Summary >>>> >>>> The Protected Audience API (formerly known as FLEDGE) provides a method >>>> of interest-group advertising without having to track individual users’ >>>> detailed browsing history as is done today with third-party cookies. >>>> Additional advantages over cookies include time limits on group membership, >>>> better user controls, and more user transparency. >>>> >>>> Blink component >>>> >>>> Blink>InterestGroups >>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component%3ABlink%3EInterestGroups&can=2> >>>> >>>> TAG review >>>> >>>> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/723 >>>> >>>> TAG review status >>>> >>>> Pending since March 2022 >>>> >>>> Risks >>>> Compatibility >>>> >>>> This is not a breaking change. To use it, sites will need to call the >>>> Protected Audience API. There is no change to existing behavior for sites >>>> not calling the API. It’s worth noting that the spec uses WebIDL to >>>> describe the script runners >>>> <https://wicg.github.io/turtledove/#script-runners> but the >>>> implementation does not. There may be minor compat issues as we align the >>>> implementation with the WebIDL semantics over time. >>>> >>>> Interoperability >>>> >>>> Gecko: No signal, requested March 2023 >>>> <https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/770> >>>> >>>> WebKit: No signal, requested March 2023 >>>> <https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/158> >>>> >>>> Edge: Edge explored interest group based advertising, namely with the >>>> PARAKEET proposal >>>> <https://github.com/WICG/privacy-preserving-ads/blob/main/Parakeet.md>. >>>> PARAKEET shares much of its API with Protected Audience but as >>>> discussed in TPAC 2022 >>>> <https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1QQgrm4oaRRRBr1gfvKj7D8rS2EW8kRgRUHPscvR8BNo/edit#slide=id.g15545e7b627_0_173>, >>>> involves proxying data to non-trusted servers in real-time whereas >>>> Protected Audience does not have long term plans to do this. >>>> >>>> Web developers: Significant interest from many web developers. Significant >>>> Origin Trial participation >>>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/blob/main/fledge-tester-list.md>. WICG >>>> FLEDGE calls <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/issues/88> are >>>> heavily attended. Interest in Protected Audience is further evidenced by >>>> the many related discussions and proposals that Protected Audience’s >>>> design draws from, most notably: >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> The original TURTLEDOVE >>>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/blob/main/Original-TURTLEDOVE.md> >>>> from Chrome. >>>> - >>>> >>>> SPARROW <https://github.com/WICG/sparrow> from Criteo. >>>> - >>>> >>>> Outcome-based TURTLEDOVE >>>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/blob/main/OUTCOME_BASED.md> and >>>> Product-level >>>> TURTLEDOVE >>>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/blob/main/PRODUCT_LEVEL.md> >>>> from RTB House. >>>> - >>>> >>>> Dovekey >>>> <https://github.com/google/ads-privacy/tree/master/proposals/dovekey> >>>> from Google Ads. >>>> - >>>> >>>> PARRROT >>>> >>>> <https://github.com/prebid/identity-gatekeeper/blob/master/proposals/PARRROT.md> >>>> from Magnite. >>>> - >>>> >>>> TERN <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/blob/main/TERN.md> from >>>> NextRoll. >>>> >>>> >>>> Demo link >>>> https://developer.chrome.com/docs/privacy-sandbox/fledge-api/#demo >>>> Debuggability >>>> >>>> To learn more about debugging Protected Audience in Chrome please >>>> follow these links: >>>> https://developer.chrome.com/blog/fledge-api/#debugging >>>> https://developer.chrome.com/blog/fledge-api/#observe-fledge-events >>>> >>>> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, >>>> Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Android WebView)? >>>> >>>> All except WebView >>>> >>>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >>>> ? >>>> >>>> We've tested all of the primary functionality in WPT. This API has a >>>> lot of surface area and so we're continuing to add platform tests over >>>> time. >>>> >>>> https://wpt.fyi/results/?q=fledge >>>> >>>> Flag name >>>> >>>> >>>> InterestGroupStorage,AdInterestGroupAPI,Fledge,AllowURNsInIframes,BiddingAndScoringDebugReportingAPI >>>> >>>> Requires code in //chrome? >>>> >>>> Yes, for settings UI controls and k-anonymity server communication. >>>> >>>> Estimated milestones >>>> >>>> Has been in Origin Trial since M101. We intend to start an incremental >>>> ramp to 100% in Stable with Chrome Release M115. >>>> >>>> Anticipated spec changes >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> We’re addressing some remaining TODOs and specifying some recently >>>> added non-breaking features (e.g. #304 >>>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/issues/304>, #305 >>>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/issues/305>, #310 >>>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/issues/310>, #166 >>>> <https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/issues/166>). >>>> - >>>> >>>> Moving beyond our core use cases, we anticipate the need to support >>>> new functionality going forward. We don’t currently anticipate changes >>>> that would break backwards compatibility. >>>> - >>>> >>>> Support for Bidding and Auction services >>>> >>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/bGd_nPuUrUg/m/j39WQ7e2AwAJ> >>>> is in progress. This is a non-breaking additional feature. >>>> >>>> >>>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>>> >>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5733583115255808 >>>> >>>> Links to previous Intent discussions >>>> >>>> Intent to Prototype: >>>> >>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/w9hm8eQCmNI >>>> >>>> Intent to Experiment: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/0VmMSsDWsFg/m/_0T5qleqCgAJ >>>> >>>> Intent to Extend Origin Trial: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/SD8Ot2gpz4g/m/A9uA-_cGAwAJ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/gpmaOi3of_w/m/SyMclFhMAAAJ >>>> >>>> >>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/CBrV-2DrYFI/m/RTojC6kHAgAJ >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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/CABQTWrn8eM3wOtUY3RzmDrt7SVxR_y_6Fo02bJ%2BF1bzbwpFfkQ%40mail.gmail.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CABQTWrn8eM3wOtUY3RzmDrt7SVxR_y_6Fo02bJ%2BF1bzbwpFfkQ%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/CAP-uykDhn3EzgNacgnEExhiLwrdnc%2Bf7ZV6qMf%3DHk1ns1oHdTw%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAP-uykDhn3EzgNacgnEExhiLwrdnc%2Bf7ZV6qMf%3DHk1ns1oHdTw%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/CAL5BFfXeB5fXX55DBVPL21vvuBB08gCxeYZxdZPVteCJK8ACuA%40mail.gmail.com.
