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

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2016-09-29 22:34, Dirk Munk wrote:
> Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> On 2016-09-28 23:09, Rob Brown wrote:
>>> On 2016-09-19, Dirk Munk <munk at home.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> DECnet Phase IV and DECnet Phase V are two completely different
>>>> products.
>>>
>>> But phase V can communicate with Phase IV nodes.  RSX never got Phase V.
>>> What about DEC's other OSes?
>>
>> Only VMS ever got Phase V. All other DEC OSes stayed at IV.
>
> Incorrect, Tru64 also had Phase V.

Ok. Noted. So VMS and Tru64 then.

>>> 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