RE: Parties and Partners

[Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>]

At 12:30 AM 10/20/00 -0400, David RR Webber wrote:
>There's at least an implied TPA as the Coke machine has to recognize the
>signal from the cell phone, and authenticate this somehow (back end server
>to GSM server interfacing to validate phone SIM ID -or similar).

We agree that the Coke machine has to publish its interface, but I
don't see that being a 'Trading Partner' agreement.
>
>Since the GSM server will not let just anyone (or Coke machine!) talk to
>it, there is a TPA there somewhere!

I think that the cell phone subscriber has a TPA with a cell service provider.
And the owner of the Coke machine probably has a TPA with the ASP.
And the ASP has a TPA with the cell service provider.

But the cell phone subscriber and Coke machine do not have a TPA.
>
>We are on the right track here using this Coke example - as you note - 
>this is exactly the sort of use case that we need to be able to demonstrate
>for the architecture.

Great! I'm glad that this is finally proving to be helpful.