[Info-vax] What would you miss if DECnet got the chop? Was: "bad select 38" (OpenSSL on VMS)

[David Froble]

Dirk Munk wrote:
> David Froble wrote:
>> Dirk Munk wrote:
>>> Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>>> On 2016-09-29 22:34, Dirk Munk wrote:
>>>>> Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>>>>> On 2016-09-28 23:09, Rob Brown wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2016-09-19, Dirk Munk <munk at home.nl> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DECnet Phase IV and DECnet Phase V are two completely different
>>>>>>>> products.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But phase V can communicate with Phase IV nodes.  RSX never got
>>>>>>> Phase V.
>>>>>>> What about DEC's other OSes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only VMS ever got Phase V. All other DEC OSes stayed at IV.
>>>>>
>>>>> Incorrect, Tru64 also had Phase V.
>>>>
>>>> Ok. Noted. So VMS and Tru64 then.
>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like Phase V to retain the ability to talk to Phase IV.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would assume/hope that this was not removed, if Phase V were worked
>>>>>> on. But I would seriously question the sanity of anyone at VSI who
>>>>>> suggested they should put any work into DECnet.
>>>>>> At most, it could make sense to provide the ability that Multinet
>>>>>> already have, of using TCP/IP as a transport for DECnet circuits,
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> can be done for Phase IV. I suspect that could actually be of some 
>>>>>> use
>>>>>> at a few places. And it has already been implemented.
>>>>>> But anything beyond that, just would not make sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Johnny
>>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with the Multinet solution is that it is non-standard (not
>>>>> covered by IP RFC's), and that it does not cover OSI applications.
>>>>
>>>> Who cares? You have two Phase IV nodes, they can connect using IP. All
>>>> else is unchanged. Phase IV couldn't care less about OSI applications
>>>> anyway. The same goes for RFCs. You do not have to have an RFC to use a
>>>> protocol. We are talking about DECnet here, remember? The fact that it
>>>> can be carried over IP just means that you have your phase IV DECnet,
>>>> nothing changed there. All that happened is that you can connect two
>>>> DECnet Phase IV machines who only have connectivity through IP
>>>> otherwise. A simple, obvious win, without any downsides at all (except
>>>> in your head).
>>>>
>>>>     Johnny
>>>
>>> So you tell the people who need OSI over IP, that their systems don't
>>> matter. Nice.
>>
>> Perhaps sign up for a Reading 101 course?  All he wrote was that if
>> someone needed a particular capability, and they were able to get it,
>> that's a good thing.  I don't read anything negative about OSI and
>> DECnet V.
>>
> Are you suggesting that VSI should supply us with an IP stack that 
> offers us two incompatible versions of DECnet over IP? Because that is 
> the problem, the standardized RFC covered version of DECnet (and OSI) 
> over IP is not compatible with the non-standard version of Multinet.

The way I understand it, DECnet IV doesn't know a thing about IP.  It is a 
feature in Multinet that does the routing over IP.  So when you mention DECnet 
over IP as if it is a DECnet feature, you've skirted reality.

Nor should you expect modifications to DECnet IV for any reasons, other than to 
keep it usable in the future.