LGTM1 per discussion in today's API OWNERs meeting. From that conversation, 
wanted to capture a few points:

   - You're approved for the requested 6 releases, although it would be 
   good if there were a check-in on how it's going after, say, 3 months
   - We're OK with this pegged to 100% of applicable users because we know 
   that population will be low across all impacted browsers
   - We decided this doesn't need 3 LGTMs for the same reason (as outlined 
   in the process 
   
<https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/#:~:text=Experimentation%20on%20higher%20percentages%20of%20Stable%20channel%20population%20(%3E%201%25)%20should%20be%20considered%20exceptional,%20and%20requires%203%20LGTMs%20from%20API%20owners.>
   )

Best,

Alex

On Wednesday, March 25, 2026 at 5:59:41 AM UTC-7 Mike Taylor wrote:

> Hey Sam,
> On 3/23/26 5:35 p.m., 'Sam Goto' via blink-dev wrote:
>
> Contact emails
>
> [email protected]
>
> Explainer
>
> https://github.com/samuelgoto/agentic-federated-login 
>
> Specification
>
> Not yet
>
> Summary
>
> This is a proposal to experiment with a set of FedCM extensions to provide 
> a structured tool to allow agentic browsers to log users in to websites 
> safely using their federated accounts. 
>
> Each individual proposal is independent from each other but are all 
> necessary to enable agentic federated login:
>
> https://github.com/samuelgoto/agentic-federated-login 
>
> It's not super clear to me how many proposals are associated with this 
> experiment after reading the explainer - I think it's 
> "potentially_approved_sites" and https://github.com/fedidcg/idp-initiated, 
> is that right? Or am I missing more? 
>
> (The "The Proposal" section is where I think I'm missing something...)
>
>
> We could I2E each FedCM extension independently, but because they are 
> needed all together (and abide to the same experimentation structure we 
> describe below), we have bundled them here. Just let us know if that’s a 
> preferred way to review them, and we'll break them apart.
>
> Blink component
>
> Blink>Identity>FedCM 
> <https://issues.chromium.org/issues?q=customfield1222907:%22Blink%3EIdentity%3EFedCM%22>
>
> Web Feature ID
>
> fedcm <https://webstatus.dev/features/fedcm>
>
> TAG review
>
> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1184
>
> TAG review status
>
> Pending
>
> Goals for experimentation
>
> We are planning to run this experiment with the same properties we expect 
> from origin trials:
>
>
>    - 
>    
>    We intend this to be a time-limited experiment of an extension of a 
>    Web Platform API (likely using the full extent of the 6 milestones that is 
>    given to origin trials) 
>    - 
>    
>    We intend to reserve the right to make breaking API changes in the 
>    period of experimentation
>    - 
>    
>    We intend to experiment it with a small percentage of the user base
>    - 
>    
>    We intend to collect the data that we need to I2S if the experiment 
>    succeeds
>    
>
> However, we are planning to deviate from the typical original trial in a 
> couple of important ways.
>
> First, because these are extensions to FedCM that are primarily motivated 
> to help agentic browsing, we would like to enable this origin trial to 100% 
> of the users using agentic browsing, but to 0% of the users of regular 
> browsing. This helps us isolate the experimentation of the APIs to agentic 
> browsing, which is a significantly smaller and safer and controlled subset 
> of users compared to non agentic browsing. We believe that, as we progress 
> through this experiment, we’ll figure out how the APIs can be deployed to 
> agentic browsing *and* to non-agentic browsing, and we believe that serving 
> agentic browsers first is a prerequisite to addressing non-agentic browsing 
> too (from a design of incentives perspective for IdPs).
>
> I don't know how big the population of agentic browsing is, but how should 
> we think about burn-in here? I think you could squint at this and call it a 
> launch? 
>
> Second, there are parts of the browser implementation that we still don’t 
> know how to generalize and onboard an IdP in a self-servicing manner, 
> namely, the account chooser UX and the machine learning models to detect 
> federated login buttons on websites. Because of that, instead of using 
> self-servicing origin trial tokens, we are planning to allow IdPs to submit 
> a Google form to show their interest in participating in this experiment 
> and manually onboard them (we’ll create a Google Form if this I2E gets 
> LGTM-ed). We believe that, as we make progress in this experiment, we’ll 
> figure out how to onboard any IdP and website without any manual review, 
> and we believe that the manual process is a step that is required for us to 
> learn how to generalize.
>
> What happens after a submission is approved? Is a token then given to the 
> IdP, or is an origin hard-coded somewhere else? 
>
>
> Having said that, the goal of this experiment is to see if users are 
> satisfied with the experiences that we can construct for the agentic 
> browser, and if identity providers have the incentives / capacity to 
> support that.
>
> Here are concrete goals with each specific API that we’ll be experimenting 
> with: 
>
> - The IdP-Iniated API: for developers, we'll be monitoring any 
> implementation errors that might occur as users use agentic browsing across 
> many websites. We think we covered most cases, but we still expect many 
> unknown unknowns to show up.
>
> - The potentially_approved_sites: we'll be monitoring the rate of false 
> positives and how users are going through them. False negatives are harder 
> to quantify programatically, so we are planning to quantify them manually.
>
> Risks
>
>
> Interoperability and Compatibility
>
> No information provided
>
> Gecko: No signal
>
> WebKit: No signal
>
> Web developers: No signals
>
> Other signals:
>
> Ergonomics
>
> The proposals being evaluated move all of the work required to the 
> identity provider and out of websites (since there are many orders of 
> magnitude more of the latter compared to the former). For consumers, 
> identity providers are typically well funded and sophisticated web 
> developers, and so far we have not identified any ergonomic risk that 
> concerns us.
>
> Activation
>
> We managed to find a way to pull all of the responsibility to the Identity 
> Provider rather than to the websites, so we expect we'll be able to 
> activate a large part of the web without having to redeploy it. It remains 
> to be seen if/how IdPs are going to proactively support logging in with 
> agentic browsers.
>
> Security
>
> We are aware of a false positive and false negative aspect of one of the 
> proposals we have, but we think we have a mechanism that degrades 
> gracefully when we detect these (we do not actually create an account and 
> instead we stop the agent and let the user take over). We are going to be 
> monitoring the experiment to understand the extent that these are happening 
> and if users can go through the fallback.
>
> 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?
>
> No information provided
>
>
> Ongoing technical constraints
>
> None
>
> Debuggability
>
> No information provided
>
> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, Mac, 
> Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and Android WebView)?
>
> No. Just desktop (Windows, Mac, Linux and ChromeOS).
>
> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests 
> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md>
> ?
>
> Yes, 
> https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/web_tests/external/wpt/fedcm/fedcm-navigation-interception/continue-on-redirect-POST.https.html
>  
>
> We’ll add more as we go along.
>
>
> Flag name on about://flags
>
> No information provided
>
> Finch feature name
>
> FedCmEmbedderInitiatedLogin
>
> Non-finch justification
>
> No information provided
>
> Requires code in //chrome?
>
> True
>
> Estimated milestones
>
> Origin trial desktop first
>
> 148
>
> Origin trial desktop last
>
> 154
>
> DevTrial on desktop
>
> 148
>
>
> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status
>
> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5141084139290624?gate=6018425698779136
>
> 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 visit 
> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAMtUnc7FM0-e_zdX0S0US%3DhiG5e%2B51r%3DTfjR4%3DfW-TJbqrMS9A%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAMtUnc7FM0-e_zdX0S0US%3DhiG5e%2B51r%3DTfjR4%3DfW-TJbqrMS9A%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 visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/822636f5-03af-4b03-83ae-8df2c07c4344n%40chromium.org.

Reply via email to