Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Review request for TURTLEDOVE (Issue #723)

> what's the intended place for standardisation after WICG?

I think the PATWG makes sense, once that WG exists.  (The incubation may move from WICG into PATCG, if that group has capacity.)

> Also can you be more specific about additional stakeholder / implementer interest in this approach? Are there other browsers who have expressed interest?

Edge is also exploring interest group based advertising, namely with[ the PARAKEET proposal](https://github.com/WICG/privacy-preserving-ads/blob/main/Parakeet.md).  PARAKEET shares much of its API with FLEDGE (the first TURTLEDOVE experiment) but has a different trust model.  Deployment experience is necessary to inform the choice between the trust models.

> Are ad networks and publishers engaged and looking to trial this approach?

There is significant interest from many web advertising technology developers.  [WICG FLEDGE calls](https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/issues/88) are heavily attended (often 30+ attendees representing 15+ companies).  Interest in TURTLEDOVE is further evidenced by the many related discussions and proposals that TURTLEDOVE design draws from, most notably:
- [SPARROW](https://github.com/WICG/sparrow) from Criteo.
- [Outcome-based TURTLEDOVE](https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/blob/main/OUTCOME_BASED.md) and[ Product-level TURTLEDOVE](https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/blob/main/PRODUCT_LEVEL.md) from RTB House.
- [Dovekey](https://github.com/google/ads-privacy/tree/master/proposals/dovekey) from Google Ads.
- [PARRROT](https://github.com/prebid/identity-gatekeeper/blob/master/proposals/PARRROT.md) from Magnite.
- [TERN](https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/blob/main/TERN.md) from NextRoll.

> On the technical end - am I right that this proposal would mean that every TURTLEDOVE ad request would lead to two requests, with a "on device auction" determining what ad the user would see? Have you considered the additional bandwidth and processing requirements that would entail for the user's device? (cf https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/#sustainable).

Today, as a person browses sites, their browser initiates network requests to store their interests server-side, and a network request is made to an ad server to select ads based on contextual signals and the user’s interests.  TURTLEDOVE eliminates the need for network requests to store interests server-side, and instead stores them on-device.  In TURTLEDOVE, a network request is made to an ad server to select ads based on contextual signals, but ad selection based on the user’s interests is done on-device by running JavaScript methods to calculate bid values.  Reducing latency of the on-device computation is top of mind and the subject of much discussion, and many times reducing latency is accomplished by reducing the required computation and processing requirements.  PARAKEET experimentation will help inform choices of what processing can be done on-device versus on a trusted server.  We invite feedback on trade-offs related to using on-device resources versus those server-side.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/723#issuecomment-1119992953

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/723/1119992953@github.com>