Mike Taylor was kind enough to answer all my questions regarding non-Google 
browsers in today's API OWNERS meeting. LGTM2.

On Wednesday, July 16, 2025 at 8:28:24 AM UTC-7 Chris Harrelson wrote:

> LGTM1
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 8:18 AM Alex Russell <slightly...@chromium.org> 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks. What's the story for non-Google browsers?
>>
>> On Monday, July 14, 2025 at 1:08:39 PM UTC-7 riz...@google.com wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Alex, I've updated the review bits in the tool. 
>>>
>>> We are currently targeting this work for Chrome's Incognito mode only. 
>>> Users will not be able to pick their proxy, but they will be able to turn 
>>> off the feature. 
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 2:18 PM Alex Russell <slightly...@chromium.org> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is exciting work, and I'm inclined to LGTM. There are some reviews 
>>>> that need to be kicked off within the tool for us to be able to move 
>>>> forward; let us know if you need help.
>>>>
>>>> On the meat of the work, are you going to be launching this feature 
>>>> with any other Chromium browsers, either with Google as a proxy or using 
>>>> the same code paths with alternate proxies? And do you envision that users 
>>>> will be able to pick their proxy?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>> On Monday, July 14, 2025 at 8:54:50 AM UTC-7 riz...@google.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Contact emailsmiketa...@chromium.org, jhbrad...@google.com, 
>>>>> riz...@google.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Explainer
>>>>> https://github.com/GoogleChrome/ip-protection/blob/main/README.md
>>>>>
>>>>> Specification
>>>>>
>>>>> None. While Apple does ship a similar feature, we believe that we need 
>>>>> the experience that comes with shipping before attempting standardization 
>>>>> or alignment of architectures. See the relevant discussion in the TAG 
>>>>> review 
>>>>> <https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1083#issuecomment-2891647225>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> Summary
>>>>>
>>>>> IP Protection is a feature that limits availability of a user’s 
>>>>> original IP address in third party contexts in Incognito mode, enhancing 
>>>>> Incognito's protections against cross-site tracking when users choose to 
>>>>> browse in this mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> IP addresses are essential to the basic functioning of the web, 
>>>>> notably for routing traffic and to prevent fraud and spam. However, like 
>>>>> third-party cookies, they can also be used for tracking. For Chrome users 
>>>>> who choose to browse in Incognito mode, we wanted to provide additional 
>>>>> control over their IP address, without breaking essential web 
>>>>> functionality.
>>>>>
>>>>> To strike this balance between protection and usability, this proposal 
>>>>> focuses on limiting the use of IP addresses in a third-party context in 
>>>>> Incognito Mode. To that end, this proposal uses a list-based approach, 
>>>>> where only domains on the Masked Domain List 
>>>>> <https://github.com/GoogleChrome/ip-protection/blob/main/Masked-Domain-List.md>
>>>>>  (MDL) 
>>>>> in a third-party context will be impacted.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1% Experiment Summary
>>>>>
>>>>> Our 1% stable Incognito experiment did not show any statistically 
>>>>> significant movement for Core Web Vitals or increase in crashes on both 
>>>>> Desktop and Android platforms. 
>>>>>
>>>>> As the feature is only enabled for a subset of traffic (domains on the 
>>>>> Masked Domain List) for Incognito sessions, the sample size is smaller 
>>>>> than 
>>>>> we typically observe in a 1% experiment. We plan to carefully ramp the 
>>>>> experiment to evaluate performance and stability impact before launching 
>>>>> to 
>>>>> Incognito 100%.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Blink component
>>>>>
>>>>> Internals>Network>Proxy 
>>>>> <https://issues.chromium.org/issues?q=customfield1222907:%22Internals%3ENetwork%3EProxy%22>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> TAG review
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1083 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> TAG review status
>>>>>
>>>>> Closed (resolution: decline)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Risks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Interoperability and Compatibility
>>>>>
>>>>> There shouldn’t be any interop concerns, as we’re routing certain 
>>>>> traffic through a series of proxies.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In terms of compatibility, there are a few possible risks, namely 
>>>>> assigning the incorrect geo 
>>>>> <https://github.com/GoogleChrome/ip-protection/blob/main/Explainer-IP-Geolocation.md>
>>>>>  
>>>>> on egress. However, this would be considered a bug in our services (to be 
>>>>> fixed server side when discovered), not a consequence of the feature 
>>>>> itself. Another risk might be that these IP ranges aren’t recognized and 
>>>>> certain traffic is incorrectly blocked or a user loses access to a 
>>>>> resource. We have published our geofeed 
>>>>> <https://www.gstatic.com/ipprotection/geofeed> as one mitigation for 
>>>>> this risk.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gecko: No signal
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WebKit: Shipped/Shipping Safari has a similar feature called iCloud 
>>>>> Private Relay.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Web developers: Mixed signals There are some different views in the 
>>>>> various open and closed issues at 
>>>>> https://github.com/GoogleChrome/ip-protection/issues. They range from 
>>>>> neutral (questions about user choice, impact on anti-fraud/anti-abuse use 
>>>>> cases, etc.) to negative (questions around the ability to trust the 
>>>>> system).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Other signals:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WebView application risks
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such 
>>>>> that it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications?
>>>>>
>>>>> None
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Debuggability
>>>>>
>>>>> We display which requests are proxied in the DevTools Network panel 
>>>>> (when IP Protection is enabled). Proxied requests can also be debugged 
>>>>> via 
>>>>> netlogs. 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We also have chrome://flags/#ip-protection-proxy-opt-out which 
>>>>> developers or users can use for testing suspected breakage. 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, 
>>>>> Mac, Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and Android WebView)?
>>>>>
>>>>> No
>>>>>
>>>>> We plan to launch this on all Blink platforms except WebView.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests 
>>>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md>
>>>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, and there isn’t any API to be tested. So we don’t plan to add any.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Flag name on about://flags
>>>>>
>>>>> None
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Finch feature name
>>>>>
>>>>> EnableIpPrivacyProxy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rollout plan
>>>>>
>>>>> (RARE) Experiment users ramp up over time
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Requires code in //chrome?
>>>>>
>>>>> False
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tracking bug
>>>>>
>>>>> https://issues.chromium.org/issues/370696608
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Launch bug
>>>>>
>>>>> https://launch.corp.google.com/launch/4403761
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Estimated milestones
>>>>>
>>>>> Shipping on desktop
>>>>>
>>>>> 140
>>>>>
>>>>> Shipping on Android
>>>>>
>>>>> 140
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Anticipated spec changes
>>>>>
>>>>> Open questions about a feature may be a source of future web compat or 
>>>>> interop issues. Please list open issues (e.g. links to known github 
>>>>> issues 
>>>>> in the project for the feature specification) whose resolution may 
>>>>> introduce web compat/interop risk (e.g., changing to naming or structure 
>>>>> of 
>>>>> the API in a non-backward-compatible way).
>>>>>
>>>>> None
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status
>>>>>
>>>>> https://chromestatus.com/feature/6574194264899584 
>>>>> <https://chromestatus.com/feature/6574194264899584?gate=6525820887105536>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Links to previous Intent discussions
>>>>>
>>>>> Intent to Experiment: 
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/9s8ojrooa_Q/m/I6Rj5UTZBgAJ
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/gBL-Nce3g9c?e=48417069
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "blink-dev" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org.
>> To view this discussion visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/c3e9c4c4-7530-4c95-9749-24f646535024n%40chromium.org
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/c3e9c4c4-7530-4c95-9749-24f646535024n%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"blink-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/f0bc64f7-27d8-44ac-930d-ccc18524cc85n%40chromium.org.

Reply via email to