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

[Dirk Munk]

Johnny Billquist wrote:
> 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.

TCP/IP services 10.5 will not be the same as Multinet, it is *based* on 
Multinet. Otherwise they could start shipping now.

>
> 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.

So in fact you're saying that if DECnet Phase V doesn't work immediately 
with the Multinet stuff, forget about DECnet over IP. So everywhere 
where DECnet Phase V systems are in use on IP only networks, instead of 
using your antique Phase IV networks, forget about these customers. If 
they are using OSI with something standard as FTAM, or if they have used 
the OSI API's to build their own OSI applications, who cares. Mr. 
Billquist doesn't need anything else then the old DECnet Phase IV, so 
the rest of all the VMS customers should also return to Phase IV. Are 
you sure you don't want to return to Phase III?

Luckily VSI has more sense then you have.

> 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...

No of course not.

Look for a company called Marben. Just one statement from their web site:

"Marben has worked on OSI from its first year of standardisation in 
1985. Marben has the largest spectrum of customers on OSI for 
telecommunication from SUN and HP to Adtran, Alcatel Lucent, Fujitsu, 
NEC, Tellabs, 600 000 stack has been deployed worldwide for SONET/SDH 
management.
Marben has also sold its OSIAM stack products to large industrials such 
as BAE, Suez in the requirement of OSI for automation."

How many DECnet Phase IV stacks are still out there??