> We just got it configured and tested with my standard throwaway ShopZ order, > Device Support Facilities. It works great, I'm sure management will love it.
Glad to hear it works great and "management will love it." If you find value in this capability I encourage you to reach out to your other software providers and request they also start signing their packages. I know one in particular is already working on it, but not sure about the many others. > 1) Is there anything on the radar to have SMP/e enforce package signature > validation if the package is signed? > 2) Ditto to have the ability for SMP/e not receive unsigned packages/products? > > Using GIM facility classes to manage it would work for me. Yes, something in this space is on our radar. Since you mention a rather specific implementation direction, can you provide more feedback? Specifically, do you prefer SMP/E options which can be set/enforced at an administrator level, perhaps using a new SAF resource check as you suggested? Or, are new options in the CLIENT XML, probably specified by each SMP/E user, sufficient? Just looking for opinions (which this group of listeners are never shy about sharing). Kurt Quackenbush IBM | z/OS SMP/E and z/OSMF Software Management | ku...@us.ibm.com Chuck Norris never uses CHECK when he applies PTFs. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
