Re: Question to the FedID CG re: FPS

> On May 30, 2022, at 7:00 AM, Heather Flanagan <hlf@sphericalcowconsulting.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello FedID CG members,
> 
> I’d like to bring your attention to a couple of discussions happening over in the PrivacyCG regarding the First Party Sets (FPS) proposal.
> Move FPS to different CG/WG (see Issue #88 <https://github.com/privacycg/first-party-sets/issues/88> and 26 May 2022 meeting notes)
> Apple WebKit's feedback on the First Party Sets proposal <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacycg/2022May/0006.html>
> The focus of the PrivacyCG is entirely, as one would expect, on privacy principles whereas the FedID CG focuses on maintaining the functionality of federation in a privacy-focused world. Somewhat different priorities that allow for different directions as ideas are incubated.
> 
> My question to the FedID CG is whether anyone thinks that FPS has sufficient utility that it helps solve for their federation use cases? I know some people/orgs have said no, because their orgs have too many domains to fit into a FPS. I also know that the FedCM API, which is our CG’s work product, assumes the existence of FPS and expects to serve as the fallback mechanism if FPS doesn’t apply.

As is somewhat acknowledged toward the end of the email linked above re: WebKit’s take on FPS, FPS is a completely unworkable and inapplicable solution for doing federated single sign-on in the multilateral federation space. From that perspective, FPS does not help with any of my federation use cases.

Best,

Nicole

> 
> All feedback is welcome!
> 
> 
> Heather Flanagan
> Spherical Cow Consulting
>  <http://linkedin.com/in/hlflanagan/>  <http://twitter.com/sphcow>
> 
> 
> 
>    Translator of Geek to Human
>    hlf@sphericalcowconsulting.com <mailto:hlf@sphericalcowconsulting.com>
> 
> 
> 
> ‌