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

[johnwallace4 at yahoo.co.uk]

On Sunday, 18 September 2016 11:32:44 UTC+1, Dirk Munk  wrote:
> David Froble wrote:
> > Dirk Munk wrote:
> >> Paul Sture wrote:
> >>> On 2016-09-17, David Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> >>>> Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'd be seriously tempted to announce the deprecation and eventual
> >>>>> removal of DECnet, for that matter.
> >>>>
> >>>> Booo!  Hisssss!
> >>>>
> >>>> Ok, we know it's not secure.  Run at your own risk.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm guessing that DECnet users use it only in house, for FAL and
> >>>> such, so if the
> >>>> in house environment is secure, then security isn't an issue for
> >>>> DECnet.
> >>>>
> >>>> If it's not going to take up time and effort, then why kill it off?
> >>>>
> >>>> I personally find it can be useful.
> >>>>
> >>>> It sure is handy when you need to shutdown and re-start TCP/IP on a
> >>>> remote (but
> >>>> in house) system.
> >>>
> >>> I'd certainly miss one or two things that DECnet does:
> >>>
> >>> o - the ability to do a SET HOST 0 /LOG= to get a log / audit trail
> >>> of software
> >>>     installations and configuration sessions.   Yes, many terminal
> >>> emulators can
> >>>     do logging, but those logs aren't on the target system.
> >>>
> >>> o - using DECnet as a means of placing BACKUP savesets on another
> >>> node, and
> >>>     restoring them from other nodes (where 'other' can be either
> >>> local or
> >>>     remote).
> >>>
> >>> o - DECnet tasks.  Useful but I haven't seen many customers use these.
> >>>
> >>> o - FAL
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> First of all, which DECnet do you mean?  DECnet Phase IV should have
> >> been abandoned years ago, DECnet Phase V has been the successor for
> >> years now, but many DECnet users are just to plain lazy to learn how
> >> it works. They took a look at the UI, concluded that is was very
> >> different from the NCP commands of Phase IV, and just gave up. Or are
> >> they too stupid to understand it?
> >
> > I use IV, which suits my purposes.  Sorry you don't approve.  Actually,
> > I don't give a damn what you think.  If you're going to take the
> > attitude that it's your way or the highway, well, good luck, you''ll
> > need it, but I don't think you'll have it.  People are allowed to have
> > differing opinions.  Even stupid people like me.
> >
> >> Has no one ever noticed the analogy between Windows and VMS in this
> >> respect? Windows uses Netbios over IP the same way VMS can use DECnet
> >> Phase V over IP. Or have you ever heard of Microsoft abandoning
> >> Netbios in favour of plane IP stuff like FTP etc. ?
> >>
> >> Besides DECnet we also have cluster traffic. It is also insecure. So
> >> let's just abandon VMS clusters as well???
> >>
> >> DECnet and cluster traffic can both use IP for transport. How to make
> >> that traffic very secure? It is so simple, use IPsec! But when I
> >> proposed that in this forum, it was made very clear that I'm an idiot
> >> to propose the only way to encrypt IP traffic that has an real
> >> architectural idea behind it, instead of the many hobby solutions like
> >> SSL, SSH etc.
> >>
> >> But again, you must make an afford to implement IPsec, and we don't
> >> want to do that. Quick and dirty solutions that are prone to lots of
> >> maintenance on the application level are much and much better.
> >> Thinking in layers, whereby encryption is part of the network and has
> >> nothing to do with applications, idiotic.
> >>
> >> So yes, you can use all the nice features DECnet has to offer, but no
> >> one cares to deal with these days. And you can use it in a safe way as
> >> well. Oh yeah, and remember, DECnet is deeply embedded in VMS, VMS was
> >> build around the idea of networking with DECnet. You do remember how
> >> full VMS file specifications looks?
> >>
> >> node::disk:{directory}file.extension.version
> >
> > Yes, my thoughts also ....
> >
> >> It start with node::
> >>
> >> Try that with plain IP.
> >>
> >> Some one recently wrote a article about the status of IPv6, and about
> >> the status of RFC's . It was shocking to read what an enormous mess it
> >> is. That is the problem with IP, it is one enormous out of hand hobby
> >> project with lots of overlapping poorly defined 'standards' that are
> >> really no standards at all (!!).  It is exactly what we should not
> >> have in times that well structured security and dependable network
> >> communication is of the utmost importance.
> >
> > In general I agree with what you've written.  I consider DECnet as a
> > part of VMS, and if one really doesn't want VMS, then just go and use
> > something else.
> 
> Thanks David.
> 
> My ideas about Phase IV are not just opinions. Phase IV is a dead end, 
> it won't be long before you can't buy routers for Phase IV. You can't 
> make Phase IV traffic secure, you can't use it in a IP-only network 
> environment, you can't use it over the internet. Those are facts, not 
> opinions.
> 
> I will go further then that. By sticking to DECnet Phase IV, you will 
> affectively kill DECnet. If DECnet is nothing else then an IP port for 
> your network people, then who cares. If it is a completely different 
> network environment, it will be all the more reason to kick DECnet and 
> even VMS out.
> 
> Does this make sense to you?
> 
> I'm sure DECnet Phase IV suits your purpose, but the nice thing with 
> DECnet is nothing changes on the application level when you go from 
> Phase IV to Phase V. Now look at IP, go from IPv4 to IPv6. You have to 
> rebuild your application, put two networks stacks in for as long you're 
> using dual stack.
> 
> So in your case:
> - Go from DECnet Phase IV to DECnet Phase V: you don't have to change 
> anything in your application.
> - Go from OSI transport to IPv4 transport: you don't have to change 
> anything in your application.
> - Go from IPv4 transport to IPv6 transport: you don't have to change 
> anything in your application.
> - Go from insecure to encrypted networking with IPsec: you don't have to 
> change anything in your application.

I'm convinced, but then I learned DECnet IV (protocols and
applications), OSI (protocols and applications), and IP4
(protocols and applications) and IP6 (vision - the rest
was still years away) all in the same few years in the
late 1980s (and not just on VMS either).

Afaict, the thing that did for DECnet/OSI (Phase V, etc) 
was the learning curve of its unified management interface.
Its immediate OSI/VMS predecessor, VOTS/OSAK/etc, was
understandable to near-normal human beings. DECnet/OSI 
suffered from "Swiss penknife syndrome".

IPv6 is still barely more than a vision for most folk. It
may be supplied and enabled with every modern Window box
and many/most Linux boxes, but how many people actually
know they've got it, let alone actually use it?

Do I want DECnet to hang around? I don't think the question
is properly formed: do we mean protocols on the wire,
applications that people use, or what? Though I suspect
the answer might still be "no" to both questions for many
people. 

I see OMNI and OSAP are still on the latest VSI roadmap
(a pair of related products which started life as ways
to talk in a formally standardised vendor-independent
way to shop floor machines and other stuff too). Built
originally on OSI networking. I would be interested to
know if they still require an underlying OSI network,
or whether minnows like Siemens, GE, etc (and their
customers) have accepted that IP-only networks are the
future for manufacturing networks for everyone,
everywhere.