Repository navigation
§ 5.4 — Formats and assets: pinned specs, what the buyer supplies, and how an asset was made (#87) - #152
Open
KonstantinMirin wants to merge 161 commits into
Open
§ 5.4 — Formats and assets: pinned specs, what the buyer supplies, and how an asset was made (#87)#152KonstantinMirin wants to merge 161 commits into
KonstantinMirin wants to merge 161 commits into
Conversation
§ 5.2 properties can carry apps[] (platform, bundle, storeurl, domain), keyed as the OpenRTB 2.6 app object where one exists. Each property must carry domains, apps or both. The CTV example carries an app. Refs IABTechLab#15
§ 5.6 defines floor as the seller's offer floor at proposal time, not the downstream auction floor and not a guarantee that bids will clear. Editorial: the meaning of the field is unchanged. Refs IABTechLab#16
Without apps[].domain a buyer has nothing to run the app-ads.txt check against. RECOMMENDED (SHOULD) rather than a conditional REQUIRED, as the object has no field in which a seller claims app-ads.txt authorisation. Refs IABTechLab#15
A proposal can say its line items must be bought together (linked_execution, § 4.1), and a line item can name the line items or spend that must be in the same commitment (requires, § 5.6.3). A bonus line is a line item with requires and its own price. The § 2 "binding terms" hook now points at a field, and the Summary Representation carries has_requires and linked_execution. Adds a CTV bonus line example (§ 6.5) and linked_execution: none to the proposal example. Refs IABTechLab#23
The seller declares which exclusion types it accepts and how it
enforces each (exclusions_accepted); the buyer supplies its lists
(exclusions). Blocked apps carry their store, { platform, bundle },
so one store id is never applied across stores. Exclusions are
recompute inputs (§ 3.3) and are never disclosed to other parties
(§ 5.8). The display example declares and supplies lists.
Refs IABTechLab#25
A line item whose rate differs by market can declare geo with the selectable structure of § 3.1: available[], included[], pricing deltas and max_select. A geo that declares only allowed[] stays settable, so existing payloads are unchanged. When several priced markets are selected, the highest delta applies. The audio example is priced by market. Refs IABTechLab#14
A commitment names the proposal and version it was priced against (§ 5.6.1). The seller rejects a new attempt on a stale version, or past valid_until or price_valid_until, and returns the current version. An authenticated replay with the same idempotency_key and terms returns the stored result without re-running those checks; the same key with different terms is a conflict. Keys are opaque and scoped to one buyer and seller pair. § 4.1 states that each revision while published increments version. The display, CTV and audio examples carry proposal_id and version. Refs IABTechLab#24
§ 4.1 adds an optional, immutable proposal_template_id linking an issued proposal to the seller's template. Each issued proposal has its own status, version and negotiation_history[], and buyers never need the template id to transact. § 7 adds a non-normative note separating seller-side templates from the issued proposals buyers commit against. Appendix A gains one row; Appendix B counts immutable 6 → 7 and 72 fields. The proposal example carries a proposal_template_id. Refs IABTechLab#26
§ 5.8 adds terms_ref ({ url, sha256, version }), REQUIRED when
terms_acceptance_required is true, hash-pinned and frozen at agreed, so
assent binds to an exact document. § 5.10 adds agreement_ref, an
informative pointer to the master or annual agreement a line item is
priced under, and documents the io and agreement roles on
external_references[]. IO generation is stated to be a connector
concern, and § 7 adds a non-normative note on relationships.
agreement_ref is seller-set; a buyer-held agreement id travels as an
external_references[] entry with role: agreement, so the field keeps
one marker (§ 3).
Appendix A gains two rows; Appendix B counts seller-set 29 → 31 and
73 fields. The display example carries terms_ref.
Refs IABTechLab#27
A new § 2.3 lets a seller publish its public standard line items at /.well-known/openproposal.json: seller_id, generated_at, spec_version and, per proposal, proposal_id, version, the Summary Representation of each line item and a full_url. ETag / Last-Modified are required, only line items with visibility public appear, and entries must match the current version. Buyers discover from the manifest, then fetch the Full Representation of shortlisted line items. Adds examples/manifest.json (§ 6.5) and visibility: public to the CTV and audio examples; the registry_gated display line item is not listed. Refs IABTechLab#29
The specification does not define authentication yet (WS1; see IABTechLab#62), so the replay rule now applies to a replay from the same buyer rather than an authenticated replay. Refs IABTechLab#24
agreement_ref.parties used buyer_id, which the specification does not define. parties[] now names the seller by its seller_id and the buyer by the id it holds in eligible_bidders[] (section 5.8). Refs IABTechLab#27
The rule that a hold on a linked_execution: all proposal uses hold_scope: proposal came from a comment on IABTechLab#23, not the change request as filed. It moves to the PR description as a point for the working group, so this PR carries only the filed change. Refs IABTechLab#23
IABTechLab#25 names the content-category list iab_content_category[], a list of IAB Content Taxonomy ids. The earlier commit renamed it content_category with a version-pinned taxonomy_ref, which nobody proposed. This restores the filed name and shape; which taxonomy version to reference is left to the working group. Refs IABTechLab#25
IABTechLab#14 doesn't say how deltas combine when a buyer selects more than one priced market, and neither did any comment on it. The earlier commit said the highest delta applies; that is a design choice nobody proposed, so it moves to the PR description as a question. Refs IABTechLab#14
Read the media condition from the ad served when an impression accepts several media, name the seller as the party that serves, place linear TV outside the table, and state environments as (distribution channel, device type) pairs. Insert environments.available[] into the summary list without rewrapping it, shorten the changelog entry and drop audio_streaming from OQ-7 in docs/open-questions.md. Refs IABTechLab#90
Move the summary rule out of the § 2.1 key list, drop skip from the CTV example, and mark the CHANGELOG entry as breaking.
time_zone is the line item's clock for daypart windows and
frequency_cap.period: an IANA time zone name or viewer_local. A window
is { days[], start, end } in civil time with an exclusive end later
than start, up to 24:00; a window that crosses midnight is two windows.
List the `days[]` values once in the `daypart` row, as `monday` | ... | `sunday`. Write HH:MM, America/New_York, and UTC as plain text, since they're a format and examples, not field names. The meaning is unchanged.
"At least one of" an empty list is never satisfied, so the bonus line would fail a literal check. An absent key sets no condition. Only the examples change; the any_of[] row and the rules stay as filed in IABTechLab#23. Refs IABTechLab#23
The floor row now says it "neither constrains nor describes the downstream auction floor", as IABTechLab#16 asked, and names that floor: the per-impression floor the exchange applies at auction time (OpenRTB 2.6 Imp.bidfloor). Refs IABTechLab#16
- Rename apps[].domain to developer_domain, as IABTechLab#15 filed it. It is the developer domain from the store listing that app-ads.txt uses, not OpenRTB 2.6 app.domain, which is the domain of the app. - Define platform as the store that issued bundle, since a bundle is unique only within its store. - List apps[].platform and apps[].bundle in the Summary Representation (section 2.1), as IABTechLab#15 asked. Refs IABTechLab#15
…ntract No IAB Tech Lab document defines the AAMP wire and lifecycle contract yet. The pre-release iab-agentic-primitives library's OpenAPI file and JSON Schemas define the messages the reference agents exchange, so an implementer can use them as the binding until the contract is published. Refs IABTechLab#59
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What this changes
Draft 1 doesn't say whether
specsholds a format's spec or only points at a registry entry, and a format id carries no version. A registry edit could change what an agreed line item requires. Nor can a line item say what the buyer supplies, who built an asset, or how it was made. This PR pins each spec in the record to one version and adds those three.specsbecomesformat_specs, a map fromFormatIdtoFormatSpec. AFormatSpecholds the wholespec, and aspec_refwhen the spec comes from a registry.spec_refis anEntryRef(§ 2.2), so it names one exact version. A pinnedspecequals that version's content, and the format id SHOULD match its<collection>/<entry_id>.draft, every offered format has an entry.FormatIdstarts with the line item'schannel.specMAY stateasset, what the buyer supplies, andvoice. A synthetic asset doesn't conform tovoice: human_only.AssetMAY stateprovenance: how it was made and how it's marked or disclosed.assets[]also records seller-built creative, throughbuilt_by.approvalandcreative_policyare prose.creative_policymoves here from § 5.6.specificationsbecomesmedia_kit_detail.specas open text the counterparty wrote.Related issue
Closes #87, a change request from Postindustria (IAB Tech Lab member).
Refs #5 and #32.
Builds on
This PR builds on our video and audio PR and our audience PR.
Through them it builds on our placement PR (#120) and these PRs of ours:
Through our PRs it carries #17, #18, and #70 to #72 by @Sirajmx, #73 to #76 by @Kishore-2572, and #117 and #118 by @aleksUIX. Review its six commits: a fix that changes no rule, the
proposal.yamlline items, "Pin each format spec to one version and rename the format fields", and three that addprovenance,built_by, andvoice, which the task force can drop.Type
Checklist
docs/open-questions.md. The second commit updates § 6.1, and the first rewords § 2.6, § 5.8, § 6.6, § 8 question 3, and OQ-3media_kit_detail,formats,format_specs, andapprovalrows take the new names and types.creative_policymoves to § 5.4.scripts/check_appendix.pypasses: 97 field names, 99 rowsseller-set, and no count changes: 5requestable, 26 of 99 touched by the buyerexamples/is updated and still parses. Every offered format has a wholespec. The CTV example pins two formats and definesctv/instream-6sitself, and seller-defined entries stateasset. Bothrecord_digestvalues are recomputed.scripts/check_examples.pychecks each format id against its channel, an entry per offered format, onespecperspec_refacross examples, and theEntryRefform. In the second commit,proposal.yamlholds its line items, the checker compares the extracts with them, andmanifest.jsonis regenerated. The first commit widens the checker. Each commit passesscripts/check_appendix.py,scripts/check_examples.py, andscripts/check_pricing_fixtures.py, 60 of 60format_specs,approval, andcreative_policysit on the line item;provenanceon the assetselectabledeclaresavailable[]andincluded[]; anythingsettabledeclares bounds (§ 3.1, § 3.2) —formatsdeclares both; no newselectableorsettablefieldsKnock-on effects
specs,specifications, anapprovalorcreative_policyobject, or a format id that doesn't start with itschannelno longer conforms.registry_refobject becomesspec_ref, anEntryRefstring with no digest (question 2). Question 3 stays open.specspath that @VJAlkimi's #32 proposes and @unreconciled supports on #5.dooh/*entries @premesh proposes and theaudio/*entries @cdorsey88 proposes can travel as seller-defined specs.assetlets [Change] § 5.4 — Validateassets[].format_refagainst the resolvedformatsselection at submission, not at creative review #32's check accept the valid script or artwork that @bhillman-TelevisaUnivision and @premesh warn it could reject.provenance,voice, and the host-read example'spronunciation_guidecome from @cdorsey88 on #5 and on this PR.assets[].format_refagainst the resolvedformatsselection at submission, not at creative review #32's submission check, and theformat_unresolvedreport andagreedbar proposed on OQ-4 — The format registry has no entries foraudio/*,ctv/*ordooh/*#5, stay on those issues.Open questions
spec_refname, and how does a reader fetch an entry? This is [Change] § 5.4 — Pin each format's spec to a version and keep it in the agreed record #87 question 3, tracked on OQ-4 — The format registry has no entries foraudio/*,ctv/*ordooh/*#5.draftline item on apublishedproposal needs entries, because the condition reads the proposal'sstatus(§ 4.3.3). Should it read the line item'sstatusinstead?format_specskeys toformats.available[]. Should it?format_specsenough, or does such an id need a namespace beyond its channel?approval_statusis the seller's review. Our #32 comment proposesapprovals[]. Should that land here or with [Change] § 5.4 — Validateassets[].format_refagainst the resolvedformatsselection at submission, not at creative review #32?By opening this pull request I agree my contribution may be published under this
repository's licence, as set out in CONTRIBUTING.md.
Analyzed and generated with the help of Claude, fully reviewed by me.