Brian, > Because both the content originator and the content receiver should be > able to veto (say) ad insertion. What about services that are executed only on behalf of the content receiver? Virus scanning might be one example. Other examples might be services that are authorized and performed on the REQUEST issued by the content receiver (as opposed to the CONTENT itself). Here, it seems sufficient if only the content receiver authorizes the service. -Markus
- opes and technology picks Eliot Lear
- Re: opes and technology picks Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: opes and technology picks Eliot Lear
- Re: opes and technology picks Valdis . Kletnieks
- RE: opes and technology picks Tony Hain
- Re: opes and technology picks Keith Moore
- Re: opes and technology picks Brian E Carpenter
- Re: opes and technology picks Markus Hofmann
- Re: opes and technology picks Brian E Carpenter
- Re: opes and technology picks Keith Moore
- Re: opes and technology picks Michael W. Condry
- Re: opes and technology picks Keith Moore
- Re: opes and technology p... Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: opes and technology p... Michael W. Condry
- Re: opes and technology p... Keith Moore
- Re: opes and technology p... Michael W. Condry
- Re: opes and technology p... Scott Brim
- Re: opes and technology p... Keith Moore
