[Sirajmx]

Draft. Do not merge until the working group confirms the disposition of #15.

What this changes

§ 5.2 properties can now identify apps as well as web domains. Each property in properties.available[] may carry apps[] with platform, bundle, storeurl and domain, keyed as the OpenRTB 2.6 app object where one exists. Each property MUST carry domains, apps or both. A note states that seller authorisation for an app is checked through app-ads.txt on its developer domain. The CTV example now carries an app identity.

Related issue

Refs #15

Type

• Editorial — no normative effect
• Normative — changes what the spec requires
• Breaking — would break an implementation already built to this draft
• Examples / schema / docs only

Checklist

• The body section is updated
• Appendix A (field index) matches the body — no new top-level field; apps sits inside properties
• Appendix B (fields by marker, and the counts) matches the body — unchanged
• Any affected example in examples/ is updated and still parses
• RFC 2119 keywords used deliberately — MUST / SHOULD / MAY are not synonyms
• The no-inheritance rule (§ 2) still holds
• Anything selectable declares available[] and included[]; anything settable declares bounds (§ 3.1, § 3.2)
• No confidential or commercially sensitive content

Knock-on effects

• domains is no longer always present. A consumer that assumed it was must handle a property carrying only apps.
• OpenRTB: bundle, storeurl and domain map directly to the 2.6 app object. platform has no OpenRTB equivalent.
• Related to OQ-7 (OQ-7 — environments[] needs validation against real inventory #8): app_mobile and ctv can't be validated against real inventory without an app identity.

---

By opening this pull request I agree my contribution may be published under this
repository's licence, as set out in CONTRIBUTING.md.

[fgranata]

This shape works for us — bundle + platform is exactly how we key app inventory, and aligning on the OpenRTB 2.6 app object is better than the new names we proposed.

One suggestion on domain: the text says seller authorisation is checked through app-ads.txt on the developer domain, but domain is OPTIONAL, so a buyer has nothing to run that check against when it is absent. Consider "SHOULD be present; REQUIRED when the seller claims app-ads.txt authorisation for the app" (or simply SHOULD).

[Sirajmx]

Thank you. Agreed: without domain, a buyer has nothing to run the app-ads.txt check against.

We have updated the PR to make domain RECOMMENDED (SHOULD, in RFC 2119 terms) rather than OPTIONAL. We kept it at RECOMMENDED rather than a conditional REQUIRED, as the object has no field in which a seller claims app-ads.txt authorisation, so the condition could not be checked. A buyer can still fall back to the developer domain in the store listing (storeurl) when domain is absent.

[KonstantinMirin]

Postindustria (IAB Tech Lab member). @Sirajmx, four points on App identity:

• domain: OpenRTB 2.6 app.domain is "Domain of the app", not the developer domain, and app-ads.txt takes the developer domain from the store listing. Seller relationship on properties (#88) proposes text for this.
• platform mixes operating systems (ios, android) and devices (fire_tv, samsung_tv), but bundle is unique only within a store: an Amazon Appstore app fits both android and fire_tv. Defining platform as the store that issued bundle, as in the OTT/CTV Store Assigned App Identification Guidelines that app.bundle cites, fixes the values for block lists (#71). That ID is AdCOM 1.0 App.storeid, not App.bundle.
• Issue [Change] § 5.2 — App identity on properties (store id / bundle id) for app_mobile and ctv inventory #15 asked the Summary Representation (§ 2.1) to list the app identifier.
• @unreconciled's inventory-share case is unanswered. Under the authorisation sentence, a buyer reads only the app owner's file and rejects the channel owner's share. [Change] § 5.2 — State the seller's relationship to each property, checkable against ads.txt #88 adds inventorypartnerdomain for it.

Analyzed and generated with the help of Claude, fully reviewed by me.

[KonstantinMirin]

Postindustria (IAB Tech Lab member). @Sirajmx, thanks for developer_domain and the platform definition. Three points remain at 63d86c0:

• developer_domain. The seller writes it, so a seller can point it at a file that lists the seller. app-ads.txt takes the developer domain from the store listing. We suggest ending the row "informative; the governing developer domain comes from the store listing". Open question 4 on #88 asks about this under the old name.
• bundle. "As OpenRTB 2.6 app.bundle" is right for OpenRTB. In AdCOM, that value is App.storeid, and App.bundle "should NOT be app store IDs".
• Inventory share. @unreconciled's case has no answer. Under the authorization sentence, a buyer reads only the app owner's file and rejects the channel owner's share. Their sentence fixes it: "Where inventorypartnerdomain is present, authorization is checked through the app owner's app-ads.txt entry for that domain and then through the ads.txt on the inventory partner's domain." #88 proposes the field.

Analyzed and generated with the help of Claude, fully reviewed by me.