Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=C3=B8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk>
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: Upcoming time boundary events
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 09:23:58 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <101cbhd$gbr1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <100fp4v$1nmtf$1@dont-email.me> <100omli$3t023$1@dont-email.me>
 <100qdop$6q13$1@dont-email.me> <100qg5t$3jb0$1@dont-email.me>
 <1014ad8$2jurh$1@dont-email.me> <m9pqvoFnrcsU1@mid.individual.net>
 <101a8m4$akb$1@dont-email.me> <101a9f6$3ul64$1@dont-email.me>
 <101c7mb$fk7a$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 15:23:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="80f291588575671ac79d1a25b61e4137";
	logging-data="536417"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/P4CJUCNWLVb3eHtzlAlCbynSuQ909seE="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iw+Wc1ftbLQwXUO8Hxf+rGLeKj0=
In-Reply-To: <101c7mb$fk7a$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2416

On 5/30/2025 8:18 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2025-05-29, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/2025 8:15 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>> These old protocols have a habit of staying around a lot longer than
>>>>> expected. For example, I suspect somewhere people are still using UUCP,
>>>>> 2780/3780, xmodem, DDCMP, original SNA (not SNA over TCP/IP), etc, ...
>>
>> SNA is an architecture. SNA over IP is still SNA. In fact 3270 over
>> BiSync can be part of an SNA Network. Would you include SNA over X.25?
>>
> 
> I look at SNA in the same way as I look at DECnet. At one time, DECnet
> ran over its own transport and lower-level protocols. As a result of
> a changing world, it was then adapted to run over a protocol (IP) which
> is not a part of SNA/DECnet.

Isn't DNA the equivalent of SNA?

 > For me, the split point between original and current SNA/DECnet occurred
 > when the previously fully native implementation was adapted to run 
over IP.

Isn't it more accurate to say that support for IP was added as a
possibility in parallel with still supporting the other protocols?

Arne