Spec disableUntrustedNetwork API surface #146
Conversation
|
Addressed comments % a question about "default" vs "initial" values. |
|
Can you just "resolve" all comment threads that have been resolved at this point? |
|
And resolve the merge conflict that this PR now has with |
|
@domfarolino Fixed merge conflicts. The open threads aren't resolved per se. They depend on your response here: (whether I should commit the suggestions or do nothing) |
|
I don't care which word we use "default" vs "initial". I just want it to be consistent, and this PR makes it inconsistent with https://github.com/WICG/fenced-frame/pull/146/files#diff-6f5a1d8263b0b0c42e2716ba5750e3652e359532647ac934c1c70086ae3ceddaR1213. So I'd either make this PR consistent with https://github.com/WICG/fenced-frame/pull/146/files#diff-6f5a1d8263b0b0c42e2716ba5750e3652e359532647ac934c1c70086ae3ceddaR1213 or make that line consistent with this PR. Whichever word you prefer. |
spec.bs
Outdated
| 1. Wait on all nested fenced frames to disable network too. | ||
|
|
||
| Issue: Spec this waiting more formally. | ||
| (<a href="https://github.com/WICG/fenced-frame/issues/151">WICG/fenced-frame#151</a>) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a HUGE TODO, so I'm not really comfortable landing this PR without those fundamental mechanisms spec'ed out a bit more rigorously, just FYI. "Wait on all nested fenced frames to disable network too" is pretty rough, so I'd like to have a good draft of how this is done in hand before landing this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have created a draft PR #176 to spec this more formally. That should hopefully unblock this PR. The "files changed" section includes changes from this PR, but the meat and potatoes is the "Recalculate the untrusted network status of all frames" algorithm.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey y'all, I'm likely going to pick up the network revocation spec work from gtanzer, since he's transitioned to other work. This seems like the first major PR to have in place, and this is the last outstanding comment. Is the draft PR #176 sufficient scaffolding for disabling network in nested frames? If so, I'll do whatever else is needed to get this PR over the finish line.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd like to get #176 just a tiny bit further along before merging this, if that's alright. It's in decent shape, I just want to be more confident in its direction before proceeding.
Preview | Diff