[email protected] (Paul Gilmartin) writes: > "VTAM"? "SNA"? I don't know the distinction.
... as an aside ... other divisions used to try and build SNA devices to the SNA protocol specs ... and they wouldn't work with VTAM ... it turns out that the only "real" definition for SNA is what VTAM would handle. for a time I used to report to the same executive as the guy responsible for APPN ... when it came time to announce, the communication group non-concurred and objected to the announcement ... after several weeks, the APPN announcement letter was carefully rewritten so not to imply any relationship between APPN and SNA ... now they try and pretend that SNA and APPN are somehow related (somewhat like doublethink out of 1984, arbitrarily redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean) http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/IBM_Systems_Network_Architecture_Protocols I would periodically bug him about coming over and working on real networking. in the late 80s, they came up with SAA as part of preserving their dumb terminal install base and paradigm; fighting off client/server and distributed computing ... I've periodically mentioned the senior disk engineer's opening statement at an annual, world-wide, internal communication group congerence that the communication group was going to be responsible for the demise of the disk division. about that time, my wife wrote 3-tier network architecture into the response to a large, distributed, highly secure, gov agency RFI ... and then we were out pitching it to customers executives (and taking loads of arrows in the back ... and political heat from the communication group and the token-ring crowd). some past posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#3tier -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
