09-30-04 01:03 AM
Thanks .. it certainly clarifies what is a trading partner/internal app.
However is there any security mechanism in the STD edition which prevents yo
u
from breaking the 20/10 rule ?
Tim
"gar34" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Tim,
> I asked m$ the same question and here's the answer I got. I don't think th
e
> number of ports comes into it.
> Hope this helps.
> Slán
> Gar
>
> ****************************************
*******
> Q: What is the definition of an internal application and a trading partner
?
> A: Although this definition is not in the EULA or PUR specifically, we
> define an internal application as a distinct application that runs on a
> single logical machine within the firewall of an organization. We do not
> require customers to count each end-device or application, just the
> application that integrates directly with Microsoft BizTalk Server. For
> example, this means customers who have BTS04 STD edition can connect to an
> ERP system, a CRM System, a SCM System, a legacy app on the mainframe, and
a
> database as five distinct internal applications under the STD license. As
> another example, this also means that customers who have BTS04 STD Edition
> could make a single internal connection to another EAI product that in tur
n
> brings together data from seven other applications or databases. In this
> scenario, that would only count as one internal connection, not seven.
>
> Although this definition is not in the EULA or PUR specifically, we define
a
> trading partner as a distinct parent entity across the Internet. We do not
> require customers to count each end-device, application or logical machine
,
> just the parent entity that integrates directly with Microsoft BizTalk Ser
ver
> from across the firewall. For example, a customer who is using BTS04 STD
> edition to connect to a large trading partner that has three divisions, ea
ch
> located at different sites around the world, needs only one external tradi
ng
> partner connection, not three.
> ****************************************
***********
>
> "TimG" wrote:
>
[ Post a follow-up to this message ]
|