Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] First-Party Sets (#342)

> > Hi @krgovind we discussed today at our [virtual f2f](https://github.com/w3ctag/meetings/tree/gh-pages/2021/12-Madripoor)... We're concerned we may be going around in circles on this. One idea we had to break the cycle is to refocus our attention on a specific use cases linked to FPS - e.g. [Same Party Cookies](https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/595) or possibly CHIPS. This would enable us to go back to the problems we're trying to solve and maybe find better ways to try to solve them. Would that make sense to you? We could then take a look at the specific user needs addressed by those designs and evaluate FPS on the basis of those needs. Yes: we had previously said that we would hold off on reviewing Same Party Cookies until we reviewed FPS - but by talking about Same Party Cookies in isolation we may be able to make some progress here.
> 
> Is the intention to zoom in on specific applications for FPS?

(Speaking only for myself) The intent is to work backwards from intended applications. If all of the intended applications are cases of *weakening* the existing privacy boundary, it seems to me that we shouldn't add a platform primitive that enables that. If some of the intended applications instead tighten things up, then it would be very valuable to try to figure out how to design a platform primitive that enables that without also accidentally enabling weakening or dissolving the existing privacy boundary.

> and [navigational tracking mitigations](https://github.com/privacycg/nav-tracking-mitigations) exempting navigations across domains within the same FPS from anti-tracking mitigations?

I think this is the first time I've heard about this particular use case, and I don't see anything about it in the NTM draft. Could you or @jyasskin tell us more? I asked @pes10k but he wasn't familiar with this idea.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/342#issuecomment-1076585044
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/342/1076585044@github.com>