Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Review request for Fenced Frames (Issue #735)

Thanks so much for the review!

> 
> We have general concerns about negative impacts if/when it is implemented before third-party cookies are completely phased out. 

Could you elaborate a bit on the concerns with fenced frames before 3p cookies are phased out? Before 3p cookies are removed, we mostly envision them to be used by developers for experimenting the use cases that rely on fenced frames like FLEDGE, Shared Storage etc.

> We also remain concerned about how the threat model is changed (eg. introducing new side-channels) when it is used in combination with other work that is emerging to meet use cases which previously needed third-party cookies, in particular the other work coming out of the Privacy Sandbox initiative. We look forward to your ongoing work on ensuring Fenced Frames is sufficiently secure and privacy preserving in the context of the wider ecosystem, and will appreciate another review request when the work has progressed further and with input from other stakeholders.

Sure, we would send another review request once some of the [ongoing technical considerations](https://github.com/WICG/fenced-frame/tree/master/explainer#ongoing-technical-constraints) like network side channel, intersection observer etc. have progressed further and we have received more inputs from stakeholders.





-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/735#issuecomment-1227144786
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/735/1227144786@github.com>