Cheryl: This is not directed at you but at SHARE/IBM more or less. I used to work on requirements for the storage products and when we would either revue all the outstanding requirements or get notification from IBM that they thought one (or more) of any requirements were "available" or satisfied we would sit back and really read the original requirement and look at IBM's response and either said "yes" or "no" and would send the "satisfied" back to IBM and explain why it wasn't. I think someone at IBM gets promoted and one of the things that the person revues is the requirements list (good but...) and either they don't understand the requirement and they decide its close so maybe nobody will notice or they truly do not have a clue. They grasp at straws in other words. We yelled at our IBM rep once in a while when a satisfied came back and we let him know it wasn't and why in so many words. Once we put in a requirement for a DASD reporting package (lot more verbage and justification) and IBM came back after 2 years and said available. We looked at their solution and responded with no it isn't, it doesn't meet part A or section 1 etc etc etc and sent it back. It (the requirement) came back as rejected. We rewrote the requirement and resubmitted and it died. Every 3 years we asked for an update and it came back still looking. I am firmly convinced that someone at IBM gets dinged for each requirement and a pat on the back for every requirement they can deflect.
Ed ________________________________ From: Cheryl Walker <che...@watsonwalker.com> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Mon, July 25, 2011 3:03:18 PM Subject: Re: dynamic STEPLIB SHARE Requirement SSSHARE011158 (A Dynamic Steplib Facility is Needed for batch and TSO) was submitted in August 1985. During our recent cleanup of the MVSE requirements (Oct 2010), the requirements committee marked it as Available, so it is no longer active. The reason: IBM developed TSOLIB as the dynamic 'steplib' feature for TSO/E. What they did is fully compliant with all existing contents supervision behaviors and MVS integrity rules. The requirement pre-dates TSOLIB and does not stipulate that activating the dynamic 'steplib' from TSO/E READY is not an acceptable solution. A customer may want to open a new requirement for a dynamic 'steplib' feature that modifies the TASKLIB for an existing command processor's TCB within ISPF. Such a requirement will likely be rejected by IBM due to concerns about security issues. If that solution had been acceptable to IBM, they would have implemented TSOLIB that way in the first place. If anybody would like to submit a new requirement and would like help, please let me know. Best regards, Cheryl ====================== Cheryl Watson Watson & Walker, Inc. www.watsonwalker.com ====================== On Jul 22, 2011, at 8:46 AM, Lizette Koehler wrote: Andy, Not every product that runs under TSO/ISPF can use LIBDEFs or ALTLIBs, or TASKLIBs. I think there is a Share requirement out there (for ages I think) for IBM to address this issue. So far, there is still no dynamic Steplib process. I think the TSO-REXX group has had some discussions on this topic as well. Lizette ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
