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

[David Froble]

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".

No, DECnet IV over Multinet should not be "implemented", because "IT ALREADY 
EXISTS"!

>> 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.

This statement, if true, which I'm not able to answer, seems to be proof that 
the IP stack doesn't know anything about DECnet V, and that everything is in 
DECnet V to use the IP transport.