Clarify what is "eligible third-party traffic"

[kostajh]

It would be nice to provide more details about what the proposal considers to be "eligible third-party traffic". The README says:

We’ll explore leveraging methods similar to other browsers and existing lists that identify these third parties.

I assume this means using some list like https://github.com/lightswitch05/hosts?

Will client-side code that makes requests to non-advertiser domains and subdomains be impacted by the proxy? For example, if visiting en.wikipedia.org, it's possible for client-side code to call other domains (login.wikimedia.org, commons.wikimedia.org) or subdomains (e.g. another language Wikipedia like el.wikipedia.org): should we anticipate that all such calls would get routed through the IP Protection proxy, because Chrome would see these requests as third-party traffic?

[miketaylr]

We'll have more to say on this in the near future, thanks for the question (and apologies for not responding sooner).

[kostajh]

We'll have more to say on this in the near future, thanks for the question (and apologies for not responding sooner).

Thanks! Somewhat related: it seems that many people have the impression that IP Protection will proxy all requests to all sites (like a built-in, always-on VPN) or it will be the equivalent to Apple iCloud Relay. It would be nice to clearly differentiate IP Protection from a VPN and iCloud Relay at the top of the README, as well as in the public facing documentation on the Privacy Sandbox site.

[kostajh]

We'll have more to say on this in the near future, thanks for the question (and apologies for not responding sooner).

hi @miketaylr, just checking, did this clarification happen? If so, we could link it here and resolve this issue.

[miketaylr]

Not yet, but we can link it here when it does. Thanks.