Status counters

[Anders Holm]

Alan,

all I'm trying to do is talk things over. You take that as arguing.

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. 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.

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

//anders


Alan DeKok wrote:
> 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.
>
> -
> List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freeradius.org/pipermail/freeradius-users/attachments/20081221/fe0427b1/attachment.html>