Status counters

[Alan DeKok]

Anders Holm wrote:
> all I'm trying to do is talk things over. You take that as arguing.

Q: How does this work?
A: It works like this.
Q: I think it works like that.
A: No, I said like this. In detail.
Q: But I really think it works like that!
A: Stop it.
Q: Stop what?

  <sigh>

> I have understood what you have stated. I'm just trying to tell you, it
> isn't as obvious always as you might think it is. Sure, for you it is
> easy, as you've even written the RFCs.

  It's easy.  I gave you 3 simple rules.  You said you understood them.
 And then you got them wrong.

> Not everyone has the background
> knowledge you do, which means they'll ask questions about things. That
> is all I have done here. I did also tell you, I've not had a chance to
> read the draft yet. Things may still clear up for me. So, give me that
> chance to read things and get the understanding you have.

  I gave you multiple chances to read my messages.  You couldn't even
reproduce "Status-Server" or "Access-Accept" accurately.  You instead
used "Status-Request" and "Status-Accept".

  I mean geez... that's a simple cut & paste.  What's the problem?

> There surely is no need to get into a huff about things, is there?

  Yes, there is.  Answer the following question:

>>   If this sounds mean... please explain to me how it's nice to read:
>>
>>    c) The response to Status-Server is Access-Accept
>>
>>   and then to respond with:
>>
>>    Starting with a Status-Request... the result of that is
>>    either a Status-Accept or Status-Reject.
>>
>>   ?

  If you can't (or won't) answer it, then you are admitting that the
miscommunication isn't on *my* end.

  Alan DeKok.