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

[Dirk Munk]

Michael Moroney wrote:
> I am following this thread with interest because I put
> a bunch of effort getting DECnet V/DECnet Plus to build
> at VSI, what we got from HP was a bit of a mess.  Since
> then I wondered, how many customers actually use DECnet V
> (or DECnet IV), and for what.
>
> Of course the VMS builtin where you could access any
> file on your DECnet with almost any software just by
> using the file spec node::dev:[dir.sub]file.ext is
> really great, and is missed on TCP/IP.
>

Dear Michael,

What I would like to see is the replacement of RFC1006 and RFC1859 in 
DECnet Phase V by RFC2126. That will add the possibility to run 
DECnet/OSI over IPv6. This RFC is almost 20 years old by now, and should 
have been implemented years ago (not the fault of VSI of course).

Complement that by IPsec, and we can have the safest DECnet traffic 
possible, as well as the safest cluster traffic possible.

How difficult can it be???

I see absolutely no reason for yet another set of horrible IP protocols 
with security and encryption on the application level.

Network security en encryption are functions of the network, *not* of 
applications.

IP people are hobbyists, so they design all kind of protocols for just 
simple file transfers. FTP, FTPS, SFTP, SCP, and I'm sure there are even 
more. It is ridiculous.

DECnet is deeply embedded in VMS, it is relatively very simple to use, 
even from within programs.

For VMS <> VMS traffic it is great, for other kinds of traffic use 
something different.