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

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2016-10-05 16:06, Dirk Munk wrote:
> Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> On 2016-10-01 02:47, 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:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Excuse me? Where did I write that???
>
> Here for instance:
>
> "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."
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, you're writing that DECnet Phase IV over Mulinet
> tunnels should be implemented, but DECnet Phase V + OSI over IP "should
> not make sense".

Uh! No. What I am writing (please reread it in case you still don't get 
it) is that DECnet Phase IV over Multinets are *already* implemented, 
and I don't think it make sense to start deleting that code.

I also say that I don't think it makes sense to implement new things for 
DECnet, so if Phase V will not work with the new stack, I doubt it makes 
sense. But that is obviously business decision in the end. Someone have 
to decide to put money on DECnet, if needed. I do not think it makes 
sense to do that.

In short - I don't think it makes sense to put much money into this, period.

>> Are you intentionally just not
>> understanding what I say, or are you in fact just not understanding?
>>
>> I was making a comment that Phase IV with Multinet works just fine
>> talking to other Phase IV multinet hosts, using IP as a carrier. You
>> complain that it's "non-standard", to which I point out that nothing
>> could be less relevant than that comment. If you have two phase IV
>> nodes, they can talk to each other. Would having an RFC (which by the
>> way does not mean it's any more standard) make any difference? No, it
>> would not. The communication works equally fine with or without an
>> RFC.
>> And it does not pretend that it will communicate with anything except
>> another Multinet node.
>
> And that's the point, a phase V system using IP as transport stack can
> talk OSI over IP to non VMS systems that have no DECnet.

Of which there are none. But sure, in theory...

	Johnny

-- 
Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                   ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se             ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol