We don't want it part of SES, at least not the SES that exists today. We may be faced with a requirement that "other group" installs our changes or at least signs off on them. Joe Operator needs to be able to confirm that PTF UMxxxxx is installed. I don't want him on MAINT. I want him to issue that equiv to "rpm -q" or "uname" command that any general user on Linux can execute.
Alan, just give us stuff that makes SOX and PCI and all that other stuff be happy :) For some odd reason, separation of duties is a big deal right now. Marcy -----Original Message----- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of Dave Jones Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 6:17 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Sevice level My opinion of this is: 1) it should support all of the components of z/VM and not just CP. 2) it should be part of the SERVICE command, or at least part of VM/SES. I do like the approach LE takes, being able to see what service is for any given module. DJ On 4/11/2011 10:54 AM, Schuh, Richard wrote: > That would be nice. It ought to also have a way to answer Marcy's question, > "Has PTF xxx been applied to the system (or, perhaps, to a specified > module)?" without having to wade through a list of the universe of PTFs. As > long as we are dreaming, it would be nice to have a defined interface so that > we could interrogate cooperative ISV modifications to CP (VSSI, CA, et. al.) > via the same command. > > Regards, > Richard Schuh > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System >> [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of David Boyes >> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 3:28 PM >> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU >> Subject: Re: Sevice level >> >> What I would like: >> >> 1) a flag for the output of Q CPLEVEL that indicates that >> additional service beyond the displayed level has been >> applied. Something like 8801++. >> >> Applying the next RSU would reset the flag until the next PTF >> outside the RSU is applied. >> >> 2) a new option to SERVICE that does the VMFSIM magic to list >> all PTFS applied to a component. Example: >> >> SERVICE LIST CP >> >> Resulting in something like: >> >> RSU 8801 >> PTF xxxxxxxxc >> PTF yyygyygyy >> Etc >> >> I think that would help non-SES wizards to understand without >> breaking the older method. >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 9, 2011, at 20:06, "Alan Altmark" >> <alan_altm...@us.ibm.com> wrote: >> >>> Following up on Nick Harris' expectation to see a change to QUERY >>> CPLEVEL after applying COR service to CP, I'd like to open a >>> discussion on how folks perceive service levels. That is, is there >>> some way that you feel IBM should express the concept of >> 'service level'? >>> >>> For the sake of discussion, let us assert that: >>> - We are talking about the running entity, not the copy of >> the entity >>> on the build disk. >>> - Unless there are specific pre-reqs or co-reqs, PTFs can >> be applied >>> in any order or combination. >>> - Each component (CP, CMS, DIRMAINT, RACF, SES, etc.) has its own >>> service stream >>> >>> Regards, >>> Alan >>> >>> z/VM and Linux on System z Consultant >>> IBM System Lab Services and Training >>> ibm.com/systems/services/labservices >>> office: 607.429.3323 >>> alan_altm...@us.ibm.com >>
