[KonstantinMirin]

What this changes

In draft 1, the seller is a registry id, the buyer is unnamed, and no rule defines who each visibility value admits. This PR names both parties and what each identity layer proves.

• § 4.1: seller and buyer are Party values, each with a REQUIRED legal_name.
• § 2.2 adds the registry_id rules to Party. proposal_id is unique within seller.domain.
• New § 1.2 separates request authentication, authorization, and legal assent, and names who owns each.
• § 5.6.1 adds commitment.advertisers[]. A commitment resolves only for an eligible buyer.
• § 5.8: visibility is REQUIRED, and each value says who may read. Who may commit is a separate test, and eligible_bidders[] splits into buyers and seats. A failure returns not_eligible; an unreadable line item returns not_found.
• § 5.9 and § 5.10 give buyer_requirements, billing, and agreement key tables.
• § 2.3: the manifest drops seller_id and lists only published line items. A buyer discards an entry for another domain. One of ETag and Last-Modified is enough; § 8 question 11 asks about both.

Related issue

Closes #61. Closes #62. Both are Postindustria (IAB Tech Lab member) change requests.

Refs #126, #29, #57, IABTechLab/AAMP#3, #26, #74, #132, #59, #75, #27, #76.

Builds on

This PR builds on our errors and extensions PR, which builds on our shared types PR. Through them, it carries #118 by @aleksUIX, #70 and #71 by @Sirajmx, and #73 and #76 by @Kishore-2572. It also carries #75 by @Kishore-2572, at its head. The last commit also renames #75's agreement_ref to agreement, with a key table. Review the last commit; the earlier ones belong to the PRs it builds on.

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 — § 1.2, § 2.1 to § 2.5, § 4.1, § 5.6.1, § 5.8, § 5.9, § 5.10, § 7, § 8
• Appendix A (field index) matches the body — the renamed rows, and visibility REQUIRED; scripts/check_appendix.py passes
• Appendix B (fields by marker, and the counts) matches the body — seller-set 38 → 39; 81 → 82 fields
• Any affected example in examples/ is updated and still parses — two examples updated, manifest.json regenerated; scripts/check_examples.py passes
• RFC 2119 keywords used deliberately — MUST / SHOULD / MAY are not synonyms
• The no-inheritance rule (§ 2) still holds — eligibility stays on each line item
• Anything selectable declares available[] and included[]; anything settable declares bounds (§ 3.1, § 3.2) — none added
• No confidential or commercially sensitive content

Knock-on effects

• Breaking. seller_id, seller_name, eligible_bidders[], and agreement_ref are gone. The CHANGELOG maps the other keys. A line item without visibility is invalid.
• Filings this answers.
  • commitment.advertisers[] answers @EvgenyAndroid's #126.
  • § 1.2 leaves mandates to an AAMP authority document, as @aeoess proposes on @authbound1's [Comment] §§ 4.1, 5.6.1, 5.8 — Authorization evidence should travel with the transaction #57.
  • The manifest takes this PR's seller identifier, as @Kishore-2572 planned on #29. The status filter follows our review of #76; the other § 2.3 rules are new.
  • named and eligible_buyers[] serve @Kishore-2572's issued proposals ([Change] § 4.1 — Proposal templates and issued proposals (proposal_template_id) #26, § 4.1, § 7 — Proposal templates and issued proposals (#26) #74).
• Changes from the filed text. [Change] § 4.1 — Identify the seller by seller_domain; make seller_id OPTIONAL #61's seller_domain and seller_id become seller.domain and seller.registry_id. [Change] § 5.8 — required_credentials[].scheme is an eligibility credential, not agent authentication #62 kept id_required, dsp_seat, and custom; this PR removes them. Our [Comment] §§ 4.1, 5.6.1, 5.8 — Authorization evidence should travel with the transaction #57 reply called an over-mandate commitment a decline; here it's a rejection.
• What later PRs of ours complete. Our lifecycle PR adds assent[] entries and says when buyer is written. Our PR on what is signed moves the first § 1.2 layer under § 2.8, and turns terms_ref into terms_refs[]. Our post-agreement PR adds which document governs what ([Comment] § 1 — Two documents define the Proposal; say which governs what #59). Our handoff PR maps buyer_requirements.seats to the Deals API ([Change] § 1.1, § 5.9, § 5.10 — Carry the Deals API deal: its id, its origin, and the buyer's seats #132). Our pricing and settlement PRs add § 8 questions 9 and 10; until then, GitHub shows 11 as 9.

---

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

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