[Info-vax] Unexpected DECnet Phase IV functionality with possible captive account implications

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2021-05-12 17:15:21 +0000, Simon Clubley said:

> On 2021-05-12, Stephen Hoffman <seaohveh at hoffmanlabs.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> And for the three or twelve folks still using this particular part of 
>> DECnet and RMS and FAL for remote direct and unencrypted database 
>> access, I'd suggest starting to work on refactoring and redesigning  
>> this particular part of the implementation.
> 
> Before you downplay the number of people still using any specific part 
> of DECnet Phase IV, just remember that VSI had to port it to x86-64 VMS 
> way earlier than it would otherwise have done due to the sheer demand 
> for it on x86-64 VMS.

DECnet use is still common, due to a less than robust migration path.

Remote DECnet FAL for shared-file-access use, rather less common. I'd 
hope. That's just asking for trouble.

I don't see a great future in DECnet generally, or for FAL 
shared-file-access among specific features.

I do see ample room for vastly better IP integration, and a better path 
away from DECnet.  Maybe that turns into scp/sftp-integrated FAL-ish 
support, too. But I'd doubt that. That's unlikely to ever make a VSI 
schedule. SMB client integration would be far easier to market, and 
more useful.

Unfortunately, OpenVMS has long had more of a grudging-at-best 
relationship with IP support and with recent networking—V6.2 and the 
associated IP work was a quarter-century ago, this week—so I'm less 
than hopeful.


-- 
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC