RE: Parties and Partners

[Mike Sharp <msharp@lante.com>]

The idea of a Proxy TPA isn't new, either.  In the building industry, a
subcontractor is usually a party to the owner - builder agreement, even though
he has neither signed, nor even seen the contract.  And similarly, there are
others who are party to the General Contractor-Subcontractor agreement--at least
through lienholder interests.  That's why public works contracts often require
payment bonds in addition to performance bonds

Regards,
Mike Sharp




David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com> on 10/20/2000 07:26:04 AM

To:   Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
cc:   "ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org" <ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org>
      (bcc: Mike Sharp/Lante)

Subject:  RE: Parties and Partners



Message text written by Murray Maloney
>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.
>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Murray,

Let me introduce the term "Proxy TPA",