[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: Parties and Partners
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.
Powered by eList eXpress LLC