--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-api-owners-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-api-owners-d...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-api-owners-discuss/790ba961-5df6-4574-af3c-4f1b41cfbc8b%40chromium.org.
Thanks, Rick!
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-api-owners-discuss+unsub...@chromium.org.
Thanks, Rick!
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-api-owners-d...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-api-owners-discuss/790ba961-5df6-4574-af3c-4f1b41cfbc8b%40chromium.org.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-api-owners-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-api-owners-d...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-api-owners-discuss/2796bc9d-05bc-4a7a-8c5f-6fa7b9ec84b6o%40chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-api-owners-discuss/CAL5BFfVD_ATZ-vFBqUy8qTT4Q%2Bm1fcKy3VHRsMSTYA7mbBGQpw%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-api-owners-discuss/CANr5HFUK8ig7%2Bo%2BGM%3D4u-CrXb2t5m33vZMxGzhKGY9a17dPZLw%40mail.gmail.com.
API owners,
We request your approval to move the Trust Token API origin trial to a rollout limiting burn-in with a 5% holdback, superseding the origin trial's current fixed usage target.
When initially estimating what subsample would suffice to provide generalizable experiment results, our experimentation partners used a particular training procedure to train models on subsampled data and found that a 10% subsample led to reasonable quality. However, this process involved some assumptions in its choice of training procedure used: in the event, these did not correspond well to the approach used to evaluate live data from the Trust Token API origin trial rollout.
In the time since our prior request for a higher, but still strictly limited, alternative origin trial usage target, third-party origin trial procedure design work has proposed an alternate rollout model aiming to avoid burn-in by using a small base::Feature holdback, accompanied by periodic cliffs involving either backwards-incompatible changes or disabling the feature. Rather than requesting a specific further limited increase to the origin trial usage target for this trial, we’d like to switch to the alternate model of limiting burn-in with a persistent 5% holdback and periodic backwards-incompatible changes. We’d additionally like to emphasize again that we believe the Trust Token API has a particularly low risk of burn-in, because trust tokens are intended to be a less useful, but privacy-better, alternative to third party cookies, a currently available alternative.Sizing: Rather than working with integrators to produce a specific estimate for "sufficiently large" sizing greater than the current 10% base::Feature rollout (targeting ≤5% usage), we felt it would be simpler to move to a different rollout model. Switching to a rollout where the feature is near-universally enabled (modulo the holdback and environment-specific feature support limitations, like older browser versions and, for now, WebView) hopefully simplifies analysis by substantially mooting questions about adequate sizing.
Controls: The "Privacy and security > Clear browsing data" control clears included sites' associated Trust Tokens state (code pointer; lengthier description in the design doc's Clearing data and browser settings section).
Sizing: Rather than working with integrators to produce a specific estimate for "sufficiently large" sizing greater than the current 10% base::Feature rollout (targeting ≤5% usage), we felt it would be simpler to move to a different rollout model. Switching to a rollout where the feature is near-universally enabled (modulo the holdback and environment-specific feature support limitations, like older browser versions and, for now, WebView) hopefully simplifies analysis by substantially mooting questions about adequate sizing.
Controls: The "Privacy and security > Clear browsing data" control clears included sites' associated Trust Tokens state (code pointer; lengthier description in the design doc's Clearing data and browser settings section).
Developer support: szuend@ (cced) has been busy landing very neat DevTools support; you can find instructions and some screenshots in our web.dev article. I think the DevTools support is probably mature enough to be a sufficient aid for debugging new JS code interacting with an existing token issuance service, or for (say) a site to debug integrating JS library code that uses the API. The NetLog integration still comes in handy when developing a new issuance service, since it provides visibility into the browser's guts to help diagnose specific server-side implementation issues.
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:17 AM David Van Cleve <dav...@chromium.org> wrote:Sizing: Rather than working with integrators to produce a specific estimate for "sufficiently large" sizing greater than the current 10% base::Feature rollout (targeting ≤5% usage), we felt it would be simpler to move to a different rollout model. Switching to a rollout where the feature is near-universally enabled (modulo the holdback and environment-specific feature support limitations, like older browser versions and, for now, WebView) hopefully simplifies analysis by substantially mooting questions about adequate sizing.I agree that the proposed model is simpler to reason about. I'd still like to understand whether that simplicity justifies the substantial jump from <5% usage to ~95% potential availability. Let's say we had philosophical reasons to suggest a 50% holdback rather than the 5% you're asking for; what would the practical impact be for your experimentation?
Controls: The "Privacy and security > Clear browsing data" control clears included sites' associated Trust Tokens state (code pointer; lengthier description in the design doc's Clearing data and browser settings section).
Great, thank you. I don't think that doc addresses making stored tokens visible on surfaces like chrome://settings/cookies/detail?site=airhorner.com, which would allow users who care to get a little more insight into who's making assertions about them (to whom). Do y'all have plans for such UI?
Mike and other API owners -Please let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks! (Sorry for not pinging earlier.)Thanks for the review,DavidOn Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 12:02:03 PM UTC-7 David Van Cleve wrote:Thanks, Mike! Responses inline to the two remaining questions.DavidOn Wednesday, March 24, 2021 at 3:13:46 AM UTC-7 Mike West wrote:On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:17 AM David Van Cleve <dav...@chromium.org> wrote:Sizing: Rather than working with integrators to produce a specific estimate for "sufficiently large" sizing greater than the current 10% base::Feature rollout (targeting ≤5% usage), we felt it would be simpler to move to a different rollout model. Switching to a rollout where the feature is near-universally enabled (modulo the holdback and environment-specific feature support limitations, like older browser versions and, for now, WebView) hopefully simplifies analysis by substantially mooting questions about adequate sizing.I agree that the proposed model is simpler to reason about. I'd still like to understand whether that simplicity justifies the substantial jump from <5% usage to ~95% potential availability. Let's say we had philosophical reasons to suggest a 50% holdback rather than the 5% you're asking for; what would the practical impact be for your experimentation?We haven’t made an effort to evaluate specific usage targets greater than the current 5%-of-PageVisits value, so we don’t have a quantitative answer to that question. Qualitatively, other things equal, less data makes it harder for models to generalize. One factor which can exacerbate this effect is model size: modern classification models often have many parameters, and estimating more parameters requires more data. Another is imbalanced data: in domains like spam detection, “positive” (spam) examples are much less common than “negative” (non-spam) ones.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-api-owners-discuss/ffc2f877-1b98-4bc6-a1ca-d5e6ce88d67fn%40chromium.org.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-api-owners-discuss+unsub...@chromium.org.
Hi Yoav,Regarding the rollout model's specifics: we're not requesting to graduate from the origin trial; the feature will still be gated by the third party origin trials mechanism. We currently gate the functionality by both the origin trial and a base::Feature: we're just requesting to move to a base::Feature holdback instead of a smaller, explicitly size-calibrated enabled field trial group.
Regarding opt-in rate: Could you please clarify what you mean by opt-in rate? I don't understand the term.
Thanks!David
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-api-owners-discuss/ffc2f877-1b98-4bc6-a1ca-d5e6ce88d67fn%40chromium.org.
Thanks!David
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-api-owners-discuss+unsub...@chromium.org.
Hi Yoav, Mike, and other API owners -Friendly ping for further review. Please let me know if you have additional questions.Thanks!On Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-7 David Van Cleve wrote:("Periodic" breaking changes, that is.)On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 4:57 PM David Van Cleve <dav...@chromium.org> wrote:Hi Yoav,> My question is: If we bump this OT usage cap to 95%, and given that it's a 3P origin trial, which is likely to have many 3Ps opt-in to on behalf of their embedders, do you have any estimate on what %age of overall users will have the feature enabled?To be clear, we are not requesting an increase in the feature's OT usage cap (which has a unit of "UseCounter counts" as a fraction of the UseCounter-recorded number of page views). Rather, we are requesting to change the model of the rollout from:(Current) The feature is gated by a limited field trial (base::Feature) rollout and the Origin Trials framework. To limit the risk of web developer burn-in, the limited field trial rollout ensures the feature's UseCounter-measured usage stays below a specific threshold.to:(Requested) The feature is gated by a nonnegligible field trial (base::Feature) holdback and the Origin Trials framework. A combination of the holdback and period breaking changes limits the risk of web developer burn-in.I don't think we have public metrics that count the proportion of clients that interact with the feature. Chrome Status shows that the API methods are currently called on around 2% of page loads with the base::Feature rollout somewhere between 10% and 15%.
Thanks!David
--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-api-owners-discuss/ffc2f877-1b98-4bc6-a1ca-d5e6ce88d67fn%40chromium.org.
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+...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/666de3e6-c1db-4ceb-a19d-61798379c992n%40chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-api-owners-discuss/CAOMQ%2Bw8JrtDC9%3Dne%3DVz1BuPcbVD64bLgDzwBhNomdG5O%3DzRqKQ%40mail.gmail.com.
API owners,
We request your approval to move the Trust Token API origin trial to a rollout limiting burn-in with a 5% holdback, superseding the origin trial's current fixed usage target.
When initially estimating what subsample would suffice to provide generalizable experiment results, our experimentation partners used a particular training procedure to train models on subsampled data and found that a 10% subsample led to reasonable quality. However, this process involved some assumptions in its choice of training procedure used: in the event, these did not correspond well to the approach used to evaluate live data from the Trust Token API origin trial rollout.
In the time since our prior request for a higher, but still strictly limited, alternative origin trial usage target, third-party origin trial procedure design work has proposed an alternate rollout model aiming to avoid burn-in by using a small base::Feature holdback, accompanied by periodic cliffs involving either backwards-incompatible changes or disabling the feature. Rather than requesting a specific further limited increase to the origin trial usage target for this trial, we’d like to switch to the alternate model of limiting burn-in with a persistent 5% holdback and periodic backwards-incompatible changes. We’d additionally like to emphasize again that we believe the Trust Token API has a particularly low risk of burn-in, because trust tokens are intended to be a less useful, but privacy-better, alternative to third party cookies, a currently available alternative.
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+...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/e3b995a4-cc9d-4038-86af-6be6e7e9ebc8n%40chromium.org.
Hi,
Can you just re-post an email to the main thread saying you'll meet the requirements of my email from two days ago:
* Actual percentage of exposed users will <= 20%* Monthly reporting to the API owners* <= 2 milestones (and please specify them in your email)
Then one of us will LGTM it.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-api-owners-discuss/CAOMQ%2Bw87ocJ5XEFKR3%3DZ_XTD8BecKXjUngQXRvdB_gVj3GtuEg%40mail.gmail.com.
LGMT3 for running beyond the normal limits of an origin trial,
adhering to conditions as described. Good luck!
/Daniel
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-api-owners-discuss/CAL5BFfWmPB2PDwSDqLJvA-7tVQ_6%2BvdNd2c9cgFRXgBOpur_vA%40mail.gmail.com.