Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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: Sat, 31 May 2025 09:33:05 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <101f0ei$1568p$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$1@dont-email.me> <101dnbj$omrq$1@dont-email.me>
 <mn.fae77e95a3bdb69b.104627@invalid.skynet.be>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 15:33:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1b82f6e78e6847d7f4cf7f0a938c9498";
	logging-data="1218841"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18QDxVEs7P02Yk4Ki8ZRpqFTTlI+l04Kjg="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LcaIXWFe3XnmqdU6IRlNapHXYlY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <mn.fae77e95a3bdb69b.104627@invalid.skynet.be>
Bytes: 3384

On 5/31/2025 6:23 AM, Marc Van Dyck wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj laid this down on his screen :
>> On 5/27/2025 8:15 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> I wonder if people will have stopped using DECnet Phase IV by then ? :-)
>>
>> My impression is that:
>> * people are now preferring IV over V, because people only
>>    need IV functionality and IV is simpler
>> * people does not use DECnet that much today, but often enough
>>    that they still prefer to have it installed
>> * usage is almost entirely:
>>    - $ SET HOST
>>    - RMS file specs
>>    - task-to-task (for those running OSU HTTPD or something else
>>      requiring it)
> 
> From what I can see from this side of the pond, everyone uses DECnet
> phase V exclusively with TCP/IP transport, so that any network gear can
> be used, without having the network people involved.

OK. Maybe I am wrong. That would explain why VSI is putting V in the
CLP kit.

The over TCP/IP argument certainly makes sense if the there is a
need for wider communication between VMS systems.

But again my impression is that often the VMS systems are in same
server room and no routing required.

But again I could be wrong. I have not been doing non-hobbyist
system management for a couple of decades.

> Other advantage is that most OPenVMS installations today are used in
> environments that must be certified, and external audit people usually
> know nothing about DECnet. They are mostly just interested in which IP
> ports are opened. Since for DECnet you just need a few, it's easily
> justified. They couldn't be possibly bothered about what DECnet object
> is enabled. They will complain about rlogin or telnet, but see nothing
> wrong with set host. FTP ? God forbid. But FAL ? just fine... You can't
> imagine how easy it was for me to get OpenVMS systems pass audits with
> flying colors, while my open systems colleagues suffered...

:-)

When I was involved in audits of VMS systems then the auditors did have
VMS checklists and checked stuff like DECnet default access.

Arne