[Info-vax] DECserver/LAT across DECnet areas?

[Dave Froble]

On 7/24/2023 9:58 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2023-07-24 14:56, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2023-07-23, Scott Dorsey <kludge at panix.com> wrote:
>>> Andy Burns  <usenet at andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is culturally very different than modern systems where everything
>>>>> is running IP and only what is on top of TCP or UDP is different.
>>>>
>>>> We're pretty close to the next stage where everything is running on top
>>>> of HTTPS, aren't we?
>>>
>>
>> Good.
>
> Not.
>
>>> Please don't remind me.  It's a horrible idea to contemplate, isn't it?
>>
>>  From a security point of view, it (or something similar) is a really
>> good idea.
>
> Have you ever heard of "all eggs in one basket"? It's generally not a good idea.
> When a security issue appears, *everything* is then voulnerable. Having multiple
> solutions, implementations and technologies carries a cost, but it also reduces
> risks in one way. Yes, you might have a higher chance of having an exploit, but
> the consequences are much less damaging. And you will always have exploits. And
> thus, any argument about the number of exploits have to acknowledge that first
> of all, there will be exlpoits. So, talking about limiting the damages is the
> more reasonable/interesting thing to do.
>
> Not to mention the overhead of running it all over http. I know that there have
> even been implementations of IP over http...
>
> It's turtles all the way down.
>
>   Johnny
>


Ok, you people are confusing me.  (Not hard to do these days.)

Is it being claimed that there are implementations of HTTP/HTTPS that do not use 
sockets?

-- 
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