Jim Bohnsack wrote:
I remember the SNATAM name now. There was an Englishman, Graham Pursey,
who used to attend the VNET Project Team meetings that were held once
or twice a year. It seems to me that he was involved in some kind of VM
based VTAM project. Was that it or was there something else? It seems
to me that there was something besides SNATAM.
Getting old and memory is the second thing to go. Don't remember what
the first was.
from the 26-28feb80 VMITE schedule:
Graham Pursey - SNATAM. This system is being perfected in
Hursley to operate SNA devices from a CMS
based system. The current direction is to
make this into a product. 45 minutes to 1 hr
... snip ...
there were constant battles with the communication group ... I got into
all sort of problems with hsdt (high speed data transport) project ...
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#hsdt
to place things in better perspective ... SNA wasn't networking
... it was dumb terminal communication.
example of gap between the communication group and hsdt project:
and also working with various parties associated with getting NSFNET going.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#nsfnet
recent retelling
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008e.html#45
of an announcement (one friday) by the communication group for a new
internal conference.
included in the announcement were these definitions (to be used for the
conference):
low-speed: <9.6kbits
medium-speed: 19.2kbits
high-speed 56kbits
very high-speed 1.6mbits
the next monday on a business trip to the far east, definition on the
conference room wall
low-speed <20mbits
medium-speed 100mbits
high-speed 200-300mbits
very high-speed >600mbits
eventually we weren't allowed to bid on nsfnet backbone ... even tho a
nsf audit of the high-speed backbone claimed that what we already had
running (internally) was at least five years ahead of all NSFNET bid
submissions. some related old email from the period
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#nsfnet
including some stuff forwarded to us about communication group spreading
FUD that sna & vtam could be used for NSFNET.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email870109
for other topic drift, the internal network
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet
(which wasn't SNA until the late 80s) was technology from the science
center
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech
and was larger than the arpanet/internet from just about the beginning
until sometime mid-85. this was about the time that serious efforts
were made to try and get the internal network converted over to sna
(and also contributed to the internet exceeding the internal network).
in this period there was a big explosion in internet nodes from workstations
and PCs. SNA was still treating internal network as something that was
purely
(mainframe) host-to-host ... and the exploding numbers of PCs were to
continue to be served by terminal emulation. some past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#emulation
