On Apr 10, 2023, at 9:09 PM, Johnny Billquist
<bqt(a)softjar.se> wrote:
On 2023-04-11 03:04, Thomas DeBellis wrote:
Yes, I was catching up on that, but perhaps not
keeping up with it...
:-)
Seems unlikely that any code in netpth would be based on the behavior of PyDECnet, but
anyway, that detail will improve soon.
PyDECnet is trying to follow the DECnet architecture specs closely (even to the point of
being struturally similar, something other implementations tend not to do).
So what's
the bottom line here? Is netpth rolling over and dying actually legitimate or is there a
better algorithm to use?
I don't think there any better algorithm. Why netpth throws errors is also unclear.
Maybe it has a more rigid idea on how circuit names should look? PyDECnet allows pretty
much anything as a circuit name. DEC was a bit more conservative... I think you need to
dig around on that maybe.
I always thought of circuit names as more or less a suggestion, and certainly seeing
circuit names in Phase II reinforced that. The specs have them as ASCII strings, no
constraints (though TOPS-20 Phase II is severely constrained by implementation choice).
So the way to deal with circuit names is just that, as ASCII strings subject to the length
limit in the spec but not otherwise constrained.
paul