Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Review request: Partitioning Network State (#596)

Hi @MattMenke2!

@ylafon and I took a look at this during a breakout this week. Overall we're really happy that you're tackling this work; it's really important to the future of the Web.

> > I think whatever we do, SW (and all storage) should ideally be partitioned by network partition key. If you have B->C->B and use the full path as the key, the inner B would have its own SW, which would certainly a bit funky.

We have a separate design review request that came in recently, [Partitioning Storage, Service Workers, and Communication APIs](https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/629), and that for them, [cookies and network stack related state is out of scope](https://github.com/wanderview/quota-storage-partitioning/blob/main/explainer.md#non-goals). We hope that you're working with them to make sure that the SW/storage partitioning key is the same as the one you're proposing.

We note that the multi-vendor effort to coordinate on all these types of partitioning questions is happening [in the Privacy CG's `storage-partitioning` repo](https://github.com/privacycg/storage-partitioning), which you're hopefully already aware of and pitching in on, which will help ensure that all implementations converge on the same partitioning keys for each kind of partitioned data or state.

Mostly our concern is that there are so many related-but-distinct efforts going on here, we want to make sure that we don't end up with subtly-different and incompatible solutions in each case of partitioning.

Thanks for bringing this to us, and please don't hesitate to come back to us if there are substantive changes that you'd like us to take a look at.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/596#issuecomment-840713097