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

[Dave Froble]

On 5/16/2021 8:03 PM, ultr... at gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 4:57:33 PM UTC-4, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>> On 2021-05-11 18:30:01 +0000, Dave Froble said:
>>
>>> Which of them allow:
>>>
>>> Open "DFE90A::[DFE]DATA.DAT" For Input as File #1%
>>>
>>> Assuming proxys are set appropriately.
>>>
>>> Please don't reply with:
>>>
>>> Open "DFE90A"DFE XXX"::[DFE]DATA.DAT" For Input as File #1%
>>>
>>> If I even remember how to do that correctly ...
>> What you're doing with RMS and FAL is entirely feasible, though through
>> different means.
>>
>> MOUNT the remote system, and access it locally. With newer systems,
>> that'd usually be an SMB mount, though OpenVMS lacks modern storage
>> connections. On OpenVMS, it'd be NFS, or maybe DFS. Then aim SQLite at
>> it, etc.
>>
>> Or with newer applications, the access would be ODBC, or a message
>> queue, or—closest to what you're doing—with the database directly e.g.
>> MariaDB and the mysql -u RemoteUser -p -h 203.0.113.13 command, etc.
>>
>> This whole area—FAL, RMS, the file system itself, remote mounts,
>> database support—is dated, as compared with the other platforms many of
>> us are now working with.

If I was using the network access in general, your suggestions might 
have merit.  If every now and then, not part of any production, I wish 
to grab some data, then the existing DECnet capabilities are helpful.

>> And in more general terms, I am un-fond of exposing the database
>> structures remotely whether by classic FAL and RMS or file share or
>> otherwise, as that makes modifications more difficult. Modifying an RMS
>> database when its internal structures have escaped the API layer and
>> becomes known to apps is un-fun. q.v. SYSUAF.DAT, etc. Which further
>> reduces my interest in using FAL and RMS, beyond discussions of the
>> authentication and encryption issues. And anybody still using FAL and
>> RMS and DECnet almost assuredly already knows about this difficulty.
>>
>> My preference would be to move out of RMS for storage for many
>> production apps,

Good than that I don't use RMS, huh?

> though that migration is less than easy for entrenched
>> configurations, and any migration necessarily incremental for many.
>>> Judged for use today, yes, the original development should not be
>>> judged by today, unless a time machine was available to the developers.
>> If DECnet is in use today, then it is a risk today, and can be or is
>> targeted today.
>> --
>> Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC
>
> I was told by Process Software years ago that "for a price" they could make it possible to run their TCPware Decnet Phase IV over IP connection thru an SSH tunnel.
>
> If Process can do it why hasn't HP then or VSI now done it already?
>
> Why is your answer one of directing users to shy away from using a great protocol and one that makes OpenVMS unique?
>
> What happened to product enhancements?
>

DECnet, while a good thing in the past, isn't the future.  Work on it 
just isn't worth the time and money.  Work on TCP/IP is worth the time 
and expense, hoping that happens.

I guess you missed Clair Grant's desire to not port DECnet to x86.

-- 
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef at tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486