Fwd: [WICG/first-party-sets] Proposing changes to First-Party Sets based on community feedback (Issue #92)

Potentially of interest...


‌
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: krgovind <notifications@github.com>
Date: Jul 27, 2022, 9:07 AM -0700
To: WICG/first-party-sets <first-party-sets@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Subject: [WICG/first-party-sets] Proposing changes to First-Party Sets based on community feedback (Issue #92)

> Summary of proposed changes:
> Based on feedback received during the incubation of First-Party Sets in the Privacy Community Group, we are proposing changes to the proposal. Following is a high-level summary of the changes, on which we invite community feedback. Please review the linked sections below for additional detail.
> All of these changes are part of PR #91 which we will review on an upcoming WICG call (see issue #89)
>
> • Define a set through use-case-specific "subsets". Each subset category will have its own requirements, and browser handling approach.
> • Leverage the Storage Access API for sites to request cross-site cookie access, instead of the SameParty attribute.
> • Abandon development of the SameParty cookie attribute, which allowed synchronous cookie access on subresource requests, and, for the most part, allowed legacy same-party flows to continue functioning with minimal adoption costs involved for web developers. However, it prevents browsers' ability to mediate these flows and potentially intervene on behalf of users.
>
> Benefits of proposed changes:
>
> • Allows for more granular use-case specific requirements and browser handling policies that are more likely to align with user expectations.
> • Achieves alignment and interoperability with other browsers' approach to mediate cross-site cookie access via Storage Access API.
>
> Challenges:
>
> • SAA involves greater adoption costs for web developers, compared to the SameParty cookie attribute. We hope to alleviate this to some extent via our proposed extension to SAA.
>
> Open question(s):
>
> • We recognize that these changes also necessitate re-examining how CHIPS integrates with First-Party Sets. We are working on technical changes to that design as well, and will share updates when we have a proposal.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: <WICG/first-party-sets/issues/92@github.com>