[Comment] Whole document — Feedback from the Agentic Bootcamp, 24 September 2026 #20

Which section?

Whole document / more than one section

Field(s) involved

See each item below.

Your comment

This issue records the feedback on OpenProposal raised at the IAB Tech Lab Agentic Bootcamp on 24 September 2026, so that it is part of the public comment record. Each item states a proposed position for the working group. None is a disposition; dispositions are decided at adjudication after the comment period closes on 22 October 2026.

Items that need a change to the specification. Each will have its own change request, linked here.

1. Line-item dependencies and bonus lines. Change request: [Change] § 2, § 4.1, § 5.6 — Line-item dependencies and bonus lines (linked_execution, requires) #23.
2. Buyer-supplied block lists. Change request: [Change] § 5.5 — Buyer-supplied block lists (exclusions_accepted, exclusions) #25.
3. Cross-publisher composition. Change request: [Change] § 2.1, § 5.10 — Cross-publisher composition: searchable summary metadata and source_ref #28.
4. Agreement and terms references. Change request: [Change] § 5.8, § 5.10 — Relationship and contract references (agreement_ref, terms_ref) #27.

Items with a proposed position and no new field:

5. Custom proposal flow. Already in the draft: type: custom and brief_ref (§ 4.1). The gap was in the demonstration, not the specification. Proposed position: no change; a custom proposal example may be added in a later revision.
6. Multi-channel line items. Proposed position: keep one channel per line item (§ 2). Bundles are expressed through linked line items (item 1).
7. Fairness: well-resourced publishers iterating proposals. Proposed position: not a gap in the object model. Buyer agents rank on fit with the brief, not on the number of revisions, and version and negotiation_history[] (§ 4.1) already make revision behaviour visible. Optionally, non-normative guidance on how often a published proposal should be revised. Question for the working group: is a rate limit or a minimum hold time on published terms wanted?
8. IO generation and contracts. Proposed position: connectors, not the core specification (item 4).
9. Measurement and verification priority. Proposed position: deferred to 4.0. Recorded here so it is on the record.

Comments on any item are welcome below. Where an item has its own change request, please comment there.

Concrete scenario

n/a — summary of event feedback.

You are commenting as

Standards body / working group participant