[Default] On 18 Dec 2017 14:11:34 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main peter.far...@broadridge.com (Farley, Peter x23353) wrote:
>Like Skip, we are a financial institution with serious client >responsibilities, and we also use a separate-from-development production >control group as the only authorized updaters of the main application >libraries. AFAIK no auditor has ever complained about our controls or our >procedures. > >We also use several layers of approvals and reviews for all application code, >which provides additional levers and control points to help protect against >both accidental and intentional application shenanigans. Do those levels of control encourage people to move applications to other platforms or the cloud? Clark Morris > >Shmuel is right to chide me for sounding like I was implying that nothing >*could* happen. I did not intend to say or imply that, as I am old and >experienced enough to know Murphy all too well in all his various >incarnations. I was simply stating that there has not (yet) been any serious >incident with our setup and controls as they are. Our ingrained culture of >caring seriously and continuously about clients helps keep a person and an >organization on their toes. > >I'm not sure if we use the LNKLST APF feature that Peter Relson mentioned, but >I would imagine we do, as I am darn sure that nothing I can do lets me run any >authorized code anywhere on z/OS. Our PARMLIB datasets are protected, so I >cannot look to see if we use it or not. > >Peter > >-----Original Message----- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On >Behalf Of Jesse 1 Robinson >Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 4:02 PM >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Subject: Re: Cobol upgrade 6.2 linklist > >To clarify my post about putting a consolidated application library in >LINKLIST. Audit did not 'force' us, they 'pressed' us. Difference is that >Audit exhortations can be resisted if you don't mind going on the defensive >all the way up the flagpole. In our case, this production library contained >modules for all major applications. Update access to this library was managed >by production control people, a segment of the Operations group. Audit felt >that this was better control than allowing production jobs to STEPLIB to >anything in the house. Concern in this case was not for mischief performed by >AC=1 programs but by devious logic in unauthorized programs. Banks have to so >darn careful. ;-) > >. >. >J.O.Skip Robinson >Southern California Edison Company >Electric Dragon Team Paddler >SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager >323-715-0595 Mobile >626-543-6132 Office ?=== NEW >robin...@sce.com > > >-----Original Message----- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On >Behalf Of Seymour J Metz >Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 9:54 AM >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Subject: (External):Re: Cobol upgrade 6.2 linklist > >"He jests at scars that never felt a wound." > >But it's not my dog. > > >-- >Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz >http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > >________________________________________ >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu> on behalf of >Farley, Peter x23353 <peter.far...@broadridge.com> >Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 1:26 AM >To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu >Subject: Re: Cobol upgrade 6.2 linklist > >Some folks have probably been burned by the abuse of user libraries in the >LINKLIST and so preach fire and brimstone against it. > >To others it is just "business as usual" because they have not experienced >such abuse or its consequences. I am one of them. > >As I said, YMMV. Each company is a mini-culture unto itself, and our beliefs >and fears are ruled by culture and experience. > >Peter > >-----Original Message----- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On >Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick >Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 7:16 PM >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Subject: Re: Cobol upgrade 6.2 linklist > >I dunno... when we migrated from VSE to z/OS in 2010 I was almost burned as a >heretic for suggesting that user application libraries be placed in the >linklist... >________________________________ >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of >Farley, Peter x23353 <peter.far...@broadridge.com> >Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 2:00 PM >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Subject: Re: Cobol upgrade 6.2 linklist > >Re: #3, that is not necessarily true. Depends heavily on the shop-standard >STEPLIB rules (use or don't use production "user library" in STEPLIB's). As >long as the "normal" rule is NOT to use production "user library" in STEPLIB's >and you choose to use the "two library" approach to migration, putting the >PDSE ahead of the PDS in the LINKLIST makes sense and does what you need it to >do. > >As usual, I think it is a case of YMMV depending on your shop's historical >STEPLIB rules. > >Peter > >-----Original Message----- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On >Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick >Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 1:32 PM >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Subject: Re: Cobol upgrade 6.2 linklist > >I am surprised no one yet as asked, is the OP referring to 1) The COBOL >compiler library, 2) the COBOL runtime library, or 3) user libraries with >COBOL programs. >1) Don't see any real need for this. >2) Probably already done, as the COBOL runtime library is CEE.SCEERUN >3) I've been told that "user libraries" like this should never be in the >linklist. > >________________________________ >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of >Jake Anderson <justmainfra...@gmail.com> >Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 5:50 AM >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Subject: Cobol upgrade 6.2 linklist > >Hi > >A general question > >Do you still cobol load module in linklist post upgrade to 6.2 ? > >Regards >Jake ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
