Do we need a transactions per impression opportunity?

[bwschmidt]

https://github.com/criteo/addressable-network-proposals/blob/906e33ed128dec9cf5c0203bdc6ffc97627c8761/mvp-spec/audit-log-requirements.md?plain=1#L69

Transaction ID is the generated identifier for a dedicated placement. One
Transaction ID per Audit Log.

I have been reviewing all of the different specifications and thinking about how the design could be simplified, and one of the design decisions I see that I don't think is necessary is the transaction_id per placement. The original SWAN model terms were written to describe the sending and receiving of data, and did not actually get detailed on the relation to actual advertisements on the page. I think this is a very reasonable way to do it and vastly simplifies design.

If you treat PAF transactions as being just a sending and receiving of user data which I think is reasonable you can save on compute and complexity for all the parties involved. I think the only real concern is the construction of an audit trail, but I do believe that can be solved in another technical way using existing fields in OpenRTB and other specifications.

I would love to start a discussion about this and hear concerns about an approach like this, either technical or legal.

Lastly, I am wondering if the design and requirements being written are meant to be for a finished PAF system, or if they are for the trial only. I ask because my understanding of the trial is that it has relaxed audit requirements which would relate only to an advertisement served using PAF data, and if that is the case could warrant a simpler design in this case.

[broggeri]

Hi Brian,

Answering first the last bit:

Lastly, I am wondering if the design and requirements being written are meant to be for a finished PAF system, or if they are for the trial only. I ask because my understanding of the trial is that it has relaxed audit requirements which would relate only to an advertisement served using PAF data, and if that is the case could warrant a simpler design in this case.

The audit trail designed in this MVP is meant to reflect the end user audit needs of the "finished" PAF system.

Other audit needs (from publishers, advertisers...) are not yet defined but could be included in future evolutions of PAF. It might then make sense to extend the design and requirements, or to define separate ones - it's a bit early to tell.

[broggeri]

So, the goal is to have each party acknowledge their involvement in the serving of an ad in a non refutable way.

Do you have a proposition to achieve that with a single transaction for all ads on a page ?