Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Intent to Implement: Media Type Video OpenRTB Conventions #5237

Closed
ehoch opened this issue May 14, 2020 · 10 comments
Closed

Intent to Implement: Media Type Video OpenRTB Conventions #5237

ehoch opened this issue May 14, 2020 · 10 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@ehoch
Copy link
Contributor

ehoch commented May 14, 2020

Right now most video configurations are being duplicated across Prebid bidders via bidder params. We'd like to standardizing the various OpenRTB video configuration options (minduration, mime types, api, etc) to all be configured at the media type declaration instead of bidder.

While currently some bidders do read this from the media type, it's not a required standard. We first want to update documentation to standardize how everything should be declared and then work with various bidders and possibly make this required for 4.0.

For example, OpenRTB video parameters would be set here:

   mediaTypes: {
            video: {
                context: 'instream', // or 'outstream'
                playerSize: [640, 480],
                api: [1],
                mimes: ['video/mp4'],
                ...
            }
  }

This has all been discussed as part of the Prebid Video task force, but let's get the discussion open!

My current proposal for OpenRTB configuration options to support would be to support:

mimes
minduration
maxduration
protocols
startdelay
placement
skip
skipafter
minbitrate
maxbitrate
delivery
playbackmethod
api
linearity

Anything I'm missing? Let me know before we begin to write this up.

@patmmccann
Copy link
Collaborator

I think this covers what we use at Cafemedia, do you think we should add 'linearity' ?

@ehoch
Copy link
Contributor Author

ehoch commented May 21, 2020

@patmmccann Not sure what the demand will be for non-linear, but added!

@jaiminpanchal27
Copy link
Collaborator

@ehoch Would there be any enforcement programmatically in Prebid core for this ? We do not do any kind of checks for bidder params.
I am understanding that this would just be a recommendation and would come under module rules which will be out very soon.

@ehoch
Copy link
Contributor Author

ehoch commented Jun 1, 2020

@jaiminpanchal27 I don't think we should. My suggested plan would be entirely just a change in documentation and rules.

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jun 17, 2020

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale label Jun 17, 2020
@robertrmartinez
Copy link
Collaborator

@ehoch @jaiminpanchal27

Have we decided the result of this?

Do we want to implement some sort of required params for video objects like we do with native

Or will this be handled with offline documentation?

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jul 6, 2020

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale label Jul 6, 2020
@patmmccann
Copy link
Collaborator

I think the plan is to handle through documentation; perhaps with a pr changing http://prebid.org/dev-docs/bidder-adaptor.html#building-the-request

@stale stale bot removed the stale label Jul 8, 2020
@mike-chowla
Copy link
Contributor

@robertrmartinez

We discussed this on the video task force call this morning and concluded for 4.0 we shouldn't make anything required since adapters may or may not need a parameter even if OpenRTB requires them. We'll revisit for 5.0.

Do we want to implement some sort of required params for video objects like we do with native

Or will this be handled with offline documentation?

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jul 25, 2020

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants