Various Suggested Documentation Corrections/Clarifications

[chompi]

Original author: jim.but...@nexage.com (July 22, 2011 21:58:34)

Attribute Name References: Need to do a full review of text descriptions especially where attribute names are referenced. Some of these refer to names that subsequently have been changed.

Object Descriptions Unclear: Some of the object description paragraphs are rather unclear. For example, it took me awhile to figure out if the video object was implying that “I want a video ad and these parameters describe what I want” versus “I am video content, these parameters describe me, and I want a video ad to be stitched into me”. The Data object is another example where a couple clarifying examples would help.

Segment Object Value Description: The description of segment.value should probably be clarified. While this is data that may have originated by a third party, it is still essentially data that the exchange is presenting to all bidders on a given auction. Therefore when the description talks about a negotiation, that would be between the third party and the exchange (i.e., and not any one bidder). The exchange must then make clear to the bidders what this data represents and how it will be represented. I suggest expressing the latter point as a “Best Practice” point similar to the first such point under Device object (i.e., that the exchange is highly encouraged to publish lists of device makes, models, etc., since there are currently no standardized reference lists).

Connection Type Description: The table description in section 6.11 was copied from 6.10, but never edited for the 6.11 table.

Bid Response Description: The first paragraph of 4.3.1 describing the bid response was copied from 3.3.1 the bid request, but never edited.

Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/openrtb/issues/detail?id=37