Where is the official .proto file?

[aeryaguzov]

RTB protocol usually has its own official .proto file, For example google: https://developers.google.com/ad-exchange/rtb/downloads/realtime-bidding-proto.txt

There is one file attached to google code project(now unsupported) (https://code.google.com/p/openrtb/issues/attachmentText?id=14&aid=140008000&name=OpenRtb.proto&token=873ef9e3c79babbd442ff40906c26cd3) which is not official (a part of the issue).

So, where is OpenRTB official .proto file?

[dolzenko]

http://www.iab.net/media/file/OpenRTBAPISpecificationVersion2_2.pdf linked from http://www.iab.net/guidelines/rtbproject . That said you should always consult the docs for the exchange you're integrating with since everybody has a slightly different idea on what OpenRTB is

[chompi]

OpenRTB is a protocol specification. Commercial implementations differ in the feature set adopted and extended (or customized). Therefore, a .proto file for a generic specification would not be useful. Like Evgeniy suggested, it is best to ask for a .proto or equivalent file from the service provider directly.

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:18 AM, Evgeniy Dolzhenko notifications@github.com wrote:

http://www.iab.net/media/file/OpenRTBAPISpecificationVersion2_2.pdf linked fromhttp://www.iab.net/guidelines/rtbproject . That said you should always consult the docs for the exchange you're integrating with since everybody has a slightly different idea on what OpenRTB is

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openrtb/OpenRTB/issues/5#issuecomment-45313350.

Pankaj Shroff shroffG@Gmail.com

[ghost]

Protocol defines a lot of fields as a recommended and optional. For reference implementation it would require to define strategy or functionality scope in a lot of cases. Various exchanges implement various fields and like my predecessors, i think it's job for exchanges to provide their .proto files. I'm not sure if there's any exchange on the market which implements OpenRTB specification fully (correct me if i'm wrong).

On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:03 AM, Pankaj Shroff notifications@github.com wrote:

OpenRTB is a protocol specification. Commercial implementations differ in the feature set adopted and extended (or customized). Therefore, a .proto file for a generic specification would not be useful. Like Evgeniy suggested, it is best to ask for a .proto or equivalent file from the service provider directly.

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:18 AM, Evgeniy Dolzhenko < notifications@github.com> wrote:

http://www.iab.net/media/file/OpenRTBAPISpecificationVersion2_2.pdf linked fromhttp://www.iab.net/guidelines/rtbproject . That said you should always consult the docs for the exchange you're integrating with since everybody has a slightly different idea on what OpenRTB is

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openrtb/OpenRTB/issues/5#issuecomment-45313350.

Pankaj Shroff shroffG@Gmail.com

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openrtb/OpenRTB/issues/5#issuecomment-45388906.

jarek@reijutsu:~$ fortune You have Egyptian flu: you're going to be a mummy. jarek@reijutsu:~$ fortune You now have Asian Flu.

[opinali]

Agree with all above. But if you want a "concrete" protocol implementation either in some kind of IDL or in specific languages/APIs, check the projects openrtb2x (which uses Avro), RTBKit (custom C++ API), and Google's recently-released OSS libraries (that use Protocol Buffers as you'd expect from us): Core OpenRTB support, Automatic OpenRTB mapping for Doubleclick protocol.

[opinali]

@ghost I don't believe this would be even possible, i.e. some exchange that implements "all of OpenRTB" (using all fields and objects) and "only OpenRTB" (not using any extensions). The feature sets of SSPs/DSPs is way too varied to allow that, the OpenRTB spec has to be a least common denominator in some things, and in others a "big umbrella" with many fields that don't make any sense for several implementors. Also the RTB business moves fast, exchanges introduce new protocol features fast enough (~quarterly for Doubleclick) so any standards effort will always be trailing behind so everybody needs extensions at least for recent stuff.

[samtingleff]

@aeryaguzov and others there is in fact an ongoing effort to put together standardized protobuf schemas for AdCOM/OpenRTB. This is in progress at https://github.com/InteractiveAdvertisingBureau/openrtb-proto-v2 for OpenRTB 2.X.