On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 07:59:47 -0700, Ed Jaffe wrote: > >Originally, SMP/E required authorization only because IEBCOPY required >it. ... It's entirely possible that additional features were >added to SMP/E over the years that work only because it's APF >authorized. If so, those features will need to be identified and >additional development will be required to find a way to provide similar >function from unauthorized SMP/E. > S99WTDSN is a case in point. Can be suppressed with NOWAIT in DDDEFs.
>Clearly, someone at IBM needs to work on this. SMP/E should go back to >being a utility that anyone can use--just just a privileged few. > I agree wholeheartedly. Can a business case be presented to IBM? Of course, one can force SMP/E to run unauthorized simply by adding an unauthorized STEPLIB or by ATTACHing it from an unauthorized program. A mildest form of the putative requirement might be to waive the RACF requirement when SMP/E is running unauthorized. (If SMP/E nonetheless threatens system integrity when it runs unauthorized, the z/OS Statement of Integrity is violated. http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/os/zos/features/racf/zos_integrity_statement.html ) -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN