> Perhaps I'm the only one who finds that message to be not very helpful.
Perhaps so. It's only an "I"nformation-level message. "Deprecated" isn't really a new term in my experience. I've seen it used in various places (although mostly by IBM, and therein mostly by Alan/Chuckie) to describe use of facilities that have been improved, while in most cases still permitting the use of the old format. That seems to be the situation here, too. I actually admire the vast majority of IBM messages (compare to almost any other operating system, including the current silver bullet: Linux). IBM seems to be able to say more in messages, more succinctly, and with better clarity than almost any other vendor. Do you have a suggestion for a better message? IBM has been quite open to improving messages (yes, even the notorious TCP/IP messages) when Reader Comment Forms are submitted. I guess RCF's are one way to get "published"! :-) Mike Walter Hewitt Associates Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of Hewitt Associates. "Jim Bohnsack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" <IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU> 03/29/2007 09:10 AM Please respond to "The IBM z/VM Operating System" <IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU> To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: DTCPRS058I Line 431: GATEWAY format deprecated, consult documentation Shimon--I think that we're talking about different oddities. I was commenting, specifically, on the use of the word "deprecated". The message is: DTCPRS058I Line /line /GATEWAY format deprecated, consult documentation. Explanation: The GATEWAY statement specified is not in the recommended format. For the recommended GATEWAY format consult z/VM TCPIP Planning and Customization. Perhaps I'm the only one who finds that message to be not very helpful. Jim Bohnsack Shimon Lebowitz wrote: >> Error messages aren't always clear but this one in TCPIP 5.2 regarding >> the GATEWAY statement takes the prize, I think. Chuckie must have >> worked vary hard to come up with this one. >> Jim Bohnsack >> >> > > I don't know what exactly has changed, but this has > been mentioned here before. > > >> I've never run into a case where order of starting the LINKs >> gave problems. BTW, the first TCp/IP was at Z/VM 4.4 level and >> the second was as Z/VM 5.2 level. (It took me a while to notice >> the syntax in the 5.2 Gateway statement had changed.) >> > > http://listserv.uark.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0607&L=IBMVM&P=R21885&I=-3 > > I didn't look through the entire thread, but I assume the > TCPIP manual will mention the changes. > > Shimon > > The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.
