Issue 418 - added support for specialPurposes, optout flag and SDKS to the deviceDisclosure JSON file #419
Conversation
| "maxAgeSeconds": 2592000000, | ||
| "cookieRefresh": false, | ||
| "domains": ["retarget.adtech123.com"], | ||
| "purposes": [1,3,4,5,6] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
NIT "purposes" should now be followed by a comma
| "cookieRefresh": false, | ||
| "domains": ["retarget.adtech123.com"], | ||
| "purposes": [1,3,4,5,6] | ||
| "specialPurpose": [1] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
typo?
Is the key name "specialPurpose" or "specialPurposes"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should be specialPurposes. i fixed it.
| <td><code>optOut</code></td> | ||
| <td>optional</td> | ||
| <td>boolean</td> | ||
| <td>If the cookie is an opt-out cookie this value is set to <code>true</code>. The default is <code>false,</code>.</td> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The changelog says
Added support to: allow vendors to declare cookies and other storage mechanisms used in pursuit of non-TCF purposes (e.g. global opt-out)
Suggest using generic language since intent is for this to apply to all storage types, not solely cookies.
How about
If the storage/cookie facilitates a user opt-out, this value is set to true. The default is false.
Also a cookie or storage may be used to effect a site-specific opt-out not just a global (cross-origin cookie) one.
| <td><code>description</code></td> | ||
| <td>optional</td> | ||
| <td>string</td> | ||
| <td>The description of what this cookie is used for.</td> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested generic language tweak (plus a nudge to brevity):
A brief description of this item's use.
|
|
||
| ### SDKS array | ||
|
|
||
| Vendors must publish the mobile in-app sdks they use for collecting and processing personal data in the context of their TCF registration. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
...use for collecting and processing...
Is this strictly whether the Vendor deploys/publishes mobile SDK libraries, or does it also encompass a Vendor's server-to-server integration with another company’s on-device SDK(s)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is for the in-app mobile SDKs the vendor uses (what is built into the application).
|
When we added the more flexible
Is it time to mark |
These updates were open for public comment until December 1st, 2025.
Based on the recent FSWG approval I revised the device storage and disclosure specification with the new supported items for: support for specialPurposes, optOut flag, and in-mobile SDKS declaration