diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 7a24a6b..38994a0 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -41,11 +41,11 @@ Pick the route that matches what you have to say: | You want to… | Do this | | :--- | :--- | -| Flag something unclear, wrong, or missing | [Open a **Comment**](../../issues/new?template=comment.yml) | -| Propose specific normative wording | [Open a **Change request**](../../issues/new?template=change-request.yml), or send a pull request against `spec/openproposal-3.0.md` | +| Flag something unclear, wrong, or missing | [Open a **Comment**](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues/new?template=comment.yml) | +| Propose specific normative wording | [Open a **Change request**](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues/new?template=change-request.yml), or send a pull request against `spec/openproposal-3.0.md` | | Answer one of the 7 open questions | Comment on that question's [tracking issue](docs/open-questions.md) | -| Report what happened when you tried to implement it | [Open **Implementation feedback**](../../issues/new?template=implementation-feedback.yml) | -| Ask a question rather than raise an issue | Use [Discussions](../../discussions) | +| Report what happened when you tried to implement it | [Open **Implementation feedback**](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues/new?template=implementation-feedback.yml) | +| Ask a question rather than raise an issue | Use [Discussions](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/discussions) | Every comment filed during the comment period gets a written disposition — accepted, accepted with modification, rejected with reason, or deferred — logged diff --git a/docs/open-questions.md b/docs/open-questions.md index b6ab86e..d8d32ba 100644 --- a/docs/open-questions.md +++ b/docs/open-questions.md @@ -3,15 +3,15 @@ The draft asks seven questions it does not answer. These are the highest-value places to comment, because the working group is genuinely undecided. -Each gets its own tracking issue when the comment period opens. **Maintainers: -file these seven issues with the `open-question` label and fill the links -below.** +Each has its own tracking issue, labelled +[`open-question`](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues?q=label%3Aopen-question). +Answer on the issue. --- ### OQ-1 — Does per-field mutability belong in 3.0? -**Issue:** `TBD` · **Spec:** § 3, § 5 +**Issue:** [#2](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues/2) · **Spec:** § 3, § 5 Sections 3 and 5 make composition part of the object: the seller declares an option space, and the buyer resolves inside it without a round trip. The @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ whether resolving inside one is worth the modelling cost. ### OQ-2 — Do seller catalogs (`catalog_ref`) belong in 3.0? -**Issue:** `TBD` · **Spec:** § 2.2 +**Issue:** [#3](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues/3) · **Spec:** § 2.2 Or should the object stay fully inline until a later version? `catalog_ref` buys compactness across a large shelf at the cost of a resolution step during @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ that. ### OQ-3 — Cross-channel guarantee comparability is unsolved -**Issue:** `TBD` · **Spec:** § 5.7 +**Issue:** [#4](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues/4) · **Spec:** § 5.7 Once one line item guarantees `viewable_rate` and another `completion_rate`, there is no normalised way for a buying agent to compare or optimise across @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ deferred. ### OQ-4 — The format registry has no entries for `audio/*`, `ctv/*` or `dooh/*` -**Issue:** `TBD` · **Spec:** § 5.4 +**Issue:** [#5](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues/5) · **Spec:** § 5.4 `specs` delegates to a registry that cannot currently answer for half the declared channels. Either the registry is extended before 3.0 ratifies, or the @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ proposed fallback behaviour. ### OQ-5 — Is a `min_line_items` field needed? -**Issue:** `TBD` · **Spec:** § 2, § 4 +**Issue:** [#6](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues/6) · **Spec:** § 2, § 4 The draft makes proposals subsettable unless binding terms mandate linked execution. Does the proposal need an explicit `min_line_items` to require a @@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ be bought whole, and whether "binding terms" is a precise enough hook. ### OQ-6 — Should `payment_terms` and `invoicing_party` be catalog references? -**Issue:** `TBD` · **Spec:** § 5.10 +**Issue:** [#7](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues/7) · **Spec:** § 5.10 Rather than repeated on every line item, given they are usually identical across a seller's shelf. Note this is in tension with the no-inheritance rule (§ 2) — @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ property). ### OQ-7 — `environments[]` needs validation against real inventory -**Issue:** `TBD` · **Spec:** § 5.2 +**Issue:** [#8](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues/8) · **Spec:** § 5.2 The enum — `web_desktop`, `web_mobile`, `app_mobile`, `ctv`, `dooh`, `audio_streaming` — is proposed, not derived from implementation experience. @@ -107,6 +107,6 @@ reporting what does not fit. ## Not on this list but worth saying If you think the draft has a problem it has not asked about, file it as a -[Comment](../../../issues/new?template=comment.yml) or a -[Change request](../../../issues/new?template=change-request.yml). The seven +[Comment](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues/new?template=comment.yml) or a +[Change request](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues/new?template=change-request.yml). The seven above are where we know we are undecided, not the limit of what we will consider.