Timothy Sipples >Phil, I don't think your assertion is true, but, regardless, what's the
>problem with granting another vendor the courtesy of referring to its >products and offerings by the names they give them? If you're referring to >z/OS Data Set Encryption, then use the name z/OS Data Set Encryption. >Otherwise you're just trying to cause confusion, not reduce it. Not my intention. I feel that IBM inadvertently caused the confusion by calling the data set encryption "PE" at first: the fact that this thread refers to it as such actually supports that, no? My intention was to reduce confusion, not cause it. Hmm,, some Googling actually finds remarkably few hits for either: "z/os" "data set encryption" or "z/os" "pervasive encryption" - fewer than 100 for either! That seems.weird and unexplainable; I'd've guessed that SHARE pages alone would have produced more than that?! >As it happens, IBM includes application-level encryption as part of its >Pervasive Encryption strategy. See, for example, Section 1.4.2 in this >redbook (the "pyramid"): >http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg248410.pdf >Obviously IBM is not opposed to application-level encryption! It's right >there, at the top of the pyramid. Shouldn't you be happy with that? I have seen that. I'm happy that IBM says that; I'd be happier if z/OS Data Set Encryption wasn't being touted as providing much more protection than it actually does. Doing so is not helping customers or IBM. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
