Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Review for Protected Audiences Bidding and Auction Services API (Issue #1009)

FWIW, https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/blob/main/FLEDGE_browser_bidding_and_auction_API.md doesn't really work as an [explainer](https://tag.w3.org/explainers/): it doesn't mention user needs, doesn't show what's possible in the status quo vs the proposed design, and doesn't include alternatives that you've considered. Further, since the TAG has already reviewed Protected Audience and identified several issues, does this feature fix any of the [problems identified in that review](https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/723#issuecomment-1944367149)? If it doesn't, the TAG probably won't spend the time to review a change that just tinkers around the edges (and so it wouldn't be worth your time to improve the explainer).

I got the impression from an API owner that the purpose of this review is to ask us to look at the general idea of offloading computation from the client to "trusted" servers. @maxpassion had a session about that at TPAC and might be interested. But this explainer doesn't really introduce that concept, and I think we'd need something more focused, with several use cases listed, to discuss it productively. Is https://github.com/googleads/conf-data-processing-architecture-reference/blob/main/docs/TrustedExecutionEnvironmentsArchitecturalReference.md the same concept you're looking at here? Should we review that instead? 

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1009#issuecomment-2453858089
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1009/2453858089@github.com>