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

[Dirk Munk]

Kerry Main wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Info-vax [mailto:info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com] On Behalf
>> Of Dirk Munk via Info-vax
>> Sent: 29-Sep-16 4:34 PM
>> To: info-vax at rbnsn.com
>> Cc: Dirk Munk <munk at home.nl>
>> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] What would you miss if DECnet got the
>> chop? Was: "bad select 38" (OpenSSL on VMS)
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> I think you will be surprised just how IP standards based
> Multinet really is:
>
> http://bit.ly/2dDKrKK - SPD
>
> http://bit.ly/2df0j6G - Data Sheet
>
> Multinet Admin Guide (note focus on RFC throughout doc)
> http://www.process.com/docs/multinet5_5/admin_ref.pdf
>
> MultiNet for OpenVMS Messages, Logicals, and DECnet Applications
> http://www.process.com/docs/multinet5_5/messages.pdf
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Kerry Main
> Kerry dot main at starkgaming dot com

Yes, but  RFC1006, RFC1859 and RFC2126 are missing.