RE: security and timing parameters

[Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

<Karsten Riemer>
To Bob, a couple of comments:
I don't agree that "timeToAcknowledgeReceipt and timeToAcknowledgeAcceptance"
could or should be interpreted differently by requestor and responder. And I
don't see anything in your cut-and-pasted text that supports that. What you
quote is my understanding, too, that "timeToAcknowledgeReceipt and
timeToAcknowledgeAcceptance" both are there to specify how long after the
sending of the original requesting message the requestor should terminate
(i.e. abort) the transaction in the absense of a response. I put the
parameters in the responding activity because they are in essence requirements
on the responder. If you would rather have them on the reqesting activity, I
will move them, but they cannot be both places, because they define only one
thing. Another option would be to put them at the transaction level because
they define the overall transaction, not one activity or the other. Give me
you vote, and I will model it that way if no-one else responds. (How long
should I wait for a response :-)
</Karsten Riemer>

By "interpreted differently":  I meant "use in different ways".
My reading was that the parameters are requirements for the
responder (as you indicated), but timeouts for the requestor,
who could terminate the transaction (which the responder
cannot do directly).  I did not mean they would be interpreted
as different durations or anything like that.  As to putting them
in one or both places, the original metamodel seems to 
do that since they are defined on a superclass.  Both activities
need to know and use the values. I vote against putting them
only on the Responding activity.  Since this easy to change,
wait as long as you can and still make the deadline of 1/3/2001.

-Bob