Status counters

[Alan DeKok]

Anders Holm wrote:
> Ah, the missing piece emerges. This is probably what I was missing.

  My frustration is that I explained how it works.  Rather than
believing that explanation, you started arguing about the rationale
behind the explanation.

  That wasn't necessary.

>>   Are you being deliberately obtuse?  Or just deliberately difficult?
>>   
> Neither. I'm deliberately trying to understand how it all works. The
> draft you linked above may or may not do so.

  It was explained.  Status-Server packets get Access-Accept responses.
  Access-Request counters don't get incremented for Status-Server packets.

  You can believe the explanations, or you can argue about them.

> Ah. 3 simple rules that weren't spelled out anywhere in the
> documentation you mean?

  I had explained them in my earlier email.  The one you argued with.

> No, nothing is asking for access. Something is asking for status. This
> is why I spelled out the 3 Status counters I did.

  <sigh>  There are no 3 status counters.  This has been explained.

> Starting with a Status-Request, not an Access-Request.

  There is no Status-Request packet.  Why are you inventing it?

> I my mind, the result of that is
> either a Status-Accept or Status-Reject.

  There is no Status-Accept packet or Status-Reject packet.  Why are you
inventing them?

> Now, I still haven't had a
> chance to read that draft, I'm just saying how I'm thinking about it.

  Your thinking is wrong.

  When I say "Status-Server" packet... I mean "Status-Server".  Not
"Status-Request".  When I say "Access-Accept" packet, I mean
"Access-Accept", not "Status-Accept".

  This is really the fundamental part of the miscommunication.  I mean
what I say.  I write what I mean.  Yet when I do that, you interpret it
as meaning something else.

  Why?

>>   This is a fascinating discusion in how a simple example can be twisted
>> into something unrecognizable.
>>   
> I find it a fascinating example of how misunderstandings can go way out
> of order instead of trying to be rectified.

  Just... stop.

  I've given the same explanation multiple times. I've tried to rectify
your misunderstandings.

  You have (even in this message) refused to understand that the
response to a Status-Server is an Access-Accept.  Not a Status-Accept.
Not a Status-Reject.  Even when I gave the "3 simple rules", one of
which is:

   c) The response to Status-Server is Access-Accept

  You *still* talk about the response to a Status-Request being a
Status-Accept.

  Uh... WTF?  Did you not understand the line (c) above?  And you
accusing *me* of "not trying to rectify a misunderstanding" ?

  Believe me, I'm trying.  Multiple times.  Yet you are *consistently*
ignoring my answers, and talking about "Status-Request", and
"Status-Accept".

  If you're not going to read my response, I don't understand why you're
asking questions.

> I'm about to read it. So, what you're saying there is someone else than
> the author I should ask if I don't understand it? See how easy things
> get misunderstood?

  I'm saying that I obviously lack the skills to explain it to you.
Witness your responses to my message:  I say "Status-Server", you read
"Status-Request".  I say "Access-Accept", you read "Status-Accept".

  I don't know how to fix that problem on my end.

  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.

  ?

  Alan DeKok.