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.