Re: Digitally signed product software packages from IBM
Take a look at validated boot/IPL for z/OS on a z16. PTFs are just starting to come out. Mark Jacobs Sent from ProtonMail, Swiss-based encrypted email. GPG Public Key - https://api.protonmail.ch/pks/lookup?op=get=markjac...@protonmail.com --- Original Message --- On Thursday, May 25th, 2023 at 7:34 PM, Andrew Rowley wrote: > On 26/05/2023 4:28 am, Kurt J. Quackenbush wrote: > > > Glad to hear it works great and "management will love it." If you find > > value in this capability I encourage you to reach out to your other > > software providers and request they also start signing their packages. I > > know one in particular is already working on it, but not sure about the > > many others. > > What about non-SMP/E delivered software? > > What would be nice to see is a function where e.g. APF and linklist > libraries at least were required to be signed. I know there was a > discussion some time back on the difficulties with load modules due to > reblocking etc. > > However, we can also sign things on z/OS e.g. SMF data. So you could > have a local signing key usable for functions like the binder and > IEBCOPY, and under certain conditions e.g. > - all input is signed > - IEBCOPY etc. is APF authorized > the reblocked module is signed with the local key, maintaining a chain > of signatures that can be validated back to the original package. > > Other components (panels etc.) would be much easier to validate a > signature. So it would be nice to be able to look at everything and see > that it is either unchanged from a vendor, or something modified locally. > > -- > Andrew Rowley > Black Hill Software > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Digitally signed product software packages from IBM
On 26/05/2023 4:28 am, Kurt J. Quackenbush wrote: Glad to hear it works great and "management will love it." If you find value in this capability I encourage you to reach out to your other software providers and request they also start signing their packages. I know one in particular is already working on it, but not sure about the many others. What about non-SMP/E delivered software? What would be nice to see is a function where e.g. APF and linklist libraries at least were required to be signed. I know there was a discussion some time back on the difficulties with load modules due to reblocking etc. However, we can also sign things on z/OS e.g. SMF data. So you could have a local signing key usable for functions like the binder and IEBCOPY, and under certain conditions e.g. - all input is signed - IEBCOPY etc. is APF authorized the reblocked module is signed with the local key, maintaining a chain of signatures that can be validated back to the original package. Other components (panels etc.) would be much easier to validate a signature. So it would be nice to be able to look at everything and see that it is either unchanged from a vendor, or something modified locally. -- Andrew Rowley Black Hill Software -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Installing a new version of z/OS using z/OSMF
Hi Gadi. At last someone (Marna) has answered your question. Once you have z/OSMF set up installing the z/OS libraries and SMPE datasets is simple. It is called ‘adding a software instance’ and in this case it is created from a portable software instance which is like a glorified tar ball. You use the filters on the dialogue panels to list subsets of the datasets (eg all target libraries) and a modify function to systematically change the dataset attributes, such as HLQ and volume. It is very similar to the first part of the ISPF Serverpac install where you configure the software and run a job which creates the datasets and renames them as required. I used to install a server pack every 2 years and always had to relearn the commands to select datasets and change their attributes. With z/OSMF you do not have to do that. In addition to the software in the Serverpac the PSI also contains the RIMLIBs as in previous server packs, and some workflows. If allowed you can leave some of these with their default names (of the form CB.ST25.*) The workflows include a documentation-only workflow and one or two corresponding to the ISPF post-install dialogue steps. You do not have to run those if you want to do the pre- and post-IPL steps ‘manually’. I always used to order Db2 as a CBPDO because a server pack is such a BIg Thing and creates a sample Db2 system which I do not want. After my experiences with a z/os server pack I ordered my last Db2 as a server pack and just did the ‘add software instance’ part. I should add that it is possible to create a Software Instance from your existing z/os system - essentially you tell z/osmf the name of the global zone and the associated target and dlib zones and it will work out the dataset names from the DDDEFs. I cannot remember whether it is possible to use that as a model for your 2.5 dataset names but in any case changing the names via the dialogue (ie changing eg CB.ST12345.SYS1.LINKLIB) is quite easy using the ‘mass change’ facility in the PSI dialogue. Also my systems are fairly simple development systems. I have no experience of using this in a real production world although I would expect it to be similar to the ISPF dialogue method. Keith Gooding Sent from my iPad > On 25 May 2023, at 19:03, Marna WALLE wrote: > Gadi, > You can learn about the z/OSMF Software Management installation process here: > https://www.ibm.com/support/z-content-solutions/serverpac-install-zosmf/ > > I would strongly recommend that you watch the short videos (under Multimedia > at the bottom) to get a flavor of what it looks like in action. Then do a > practice install with a sample package which you can acquire from the "Try > it" tab on that website. > > z/OS V2.3 (with z/OSMF active) is a fine driving system level for installing > z/OS V2.5, but as you mention, is longer supported. Just make sure you > follow the driving system requirements documented in the z/OS V2.5 Planning > for Installation book. You could also acquire the Customized Offerings > Driver (free driving system, orderable on Shopz), if you wanted to use a > supported driving system level that has z/OSMF already active on it. > > -Marna WALLE > z/OS Install and Upgrade > IBM Poughkkeepsie > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: FTP client question
Hi Rex Networking is not my speciality but you should be able to add a HOST route - see the BEGINROUTES statement in IP Config Reference. Something like this: ROUTE windows server IP address. HOST = OSA_INTERFACE2 where OSA_INTERFACE2 is the interface which you want to use. This example assumes that the server is on the same subnet as the adapter - change - to the router IP address if not. No guarantees. Keith Gooding Sent from my iPad > On 25 May 2023, at 16:41, Pommier, Rex wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have a question about routing FTP traffic. First a bit about the > environment. Z14-zr1 with (2) 1-GbE OSA adapters shared across 3 LPARs. The > 2 adapters are not in a VIPA configuration. Right now on this LPAR, only 1 > of the adapters is defined to TCP/IP. I can easily get the second OSA > configured into TCP/IP on the LPAR so that's not an issue. > > The situation/question. I have 3 jobs that run on the mainframe that all 3 > initiate an FTP process to Windows servers. Between the 3 jobs they are > pushing between 1.5 and 2 terabytes to the servers. The jobs are currently > single threaded and from looking at the FTP output, they are pushing the > Ethernet adapter that is in use at 100%. My question is this: If I configure > the second adapter, is there a way that I can force one of these jobs to use > one of the OSA adapters and the other 2 to go to the second adapter? From > what I recall, z/OS doesn't do any kind of trunking or load balancing so > setting up a VIPA won't improve throughput by using both adapters. I've > meandered through the IP configuration reference and see nothing that would > give me this capability. > > TIA > > Rex > > -- > The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from > disclosure and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is > not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering > this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any > disclosure, distribution, copying, or any action taken or action omitted in > reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have > received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by > replying to this message and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in > electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. > > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Digitally signed product software packages from IBM
I like the SAF checks for audit reasons as well as enforcement of corporate policies. If someone needs to receive something unsigned they can get temporary access to do so without needing to edit anything in their receive job. Mark Jacobs Sent from ProtonMail, Swiss-based encrypted email. GPG Public Key - https://api.protonmail.ch/pks/lookup?op=get=markjac...@protonmail.com --- Original Message --- On Thursday, May 25th, 2023 at 2:28 PM, Kurt J. Quackenbush wrote: > > We just got it configured and tested with my standard throwaway ShopZ > > order, Device Support Facilities. It works great, I'm sure management will > > love it. > > > Glad to hear it works great and "management will love it." If you find value > in this capability I encourage you to reach out to your other software > providers and request they also start signing their packages. I know one in > particular is already working on it, but not sure about the many others. > > > 1) Is there anything on the radar to have SMP/e enforce package signature > > validation if the package is signed? > > 2) Ditto to have the ability for SMP/e not receive unsigned > > packages/products? > > > > Using GIM facility classes to manage it would work for me. > > > Yes, something in this space is on our radar. Since you mention a rather > specific implementation direction, can you provide more feedback? > Specifically, do you prefer SMP/E options which can be set/enforced at an > administrator level, perhaps using a new SAF resource check as you suggested? > Or, are new options in the CLIENT XML, probably specified by each SMP/E user, > sufficient? Just looking for opinions (which this group of listeners are > never shy about sharing). > > Kurt Quackenbush > IBM | z/OS SMP/E and z/OSMF Software Management | ku...@us.ibm.com > > Chuck Norris never uses CHECK when he applies PTFs. > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Digitally signed product software packages from IBM
> We just got it configured and tested with my standard throwaway ShopZ order, > Device Support Facilities. It works great, I'm sure management will love it. Glad to hear it works great and "management will love it." If you find value in this capability I encourage you to reach out to your other software providers and request they also start signing their packages. I know one in particular is already working on it, but not sure about the many others. > 1) Is there anything on the radar to have SMP/e enforce package signature > validation if the package is signed? > 2) Ditto to have the ability for SMP/e not receive unsigned packages/products? > > Using GIM facility classes to manage it would work for me. Yes, something in this space is on our radar. Since you mention a rather specific implementation direction, can you provide more feedback? Specifically, do you prefer SMP/E options which can be set/enforced at an administrator level, perhaps using a new SAF resource check as you suggested? Or, are new options in the CLIENT XML, probably specified by each SMP/E user, sufficient? Just looking for opinions (which this group of listeners are never shy about sharing). Kurt Quackenbush IBM | z/OS SMP/E and z/OSMF Software Management | ku...@us.ibm.com Chuck Norris never uses CHECK when he applies PTFs. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Installing a new version of z/OS using z/OSMF
Gadi, You can learn about the z/OSMF Software Management installation process here: https://www.ibm.com/support/z-content-solutions/serverpac-install-zosmf/ I would strongly recommend that you watch the short videos (under Multimedia at the bottom) to get a flavor of what it looks like in action. Then do a practice install with a sample package which you can acquire from the "Try it" tab on that website. z/OS V2.3 (with z/OSMF active) is a fine driving system level for installing z/OS V2.5, but as you mention, is longer supported. Just make sure you follow the driving system requirements documented in the z/OS V2.5 Planning for Installation book. You could also acquire the Customized Offerings Driver (free driving system, orderable on Shopz), if you wanted to use a supported driving system level that has z/OSMF already active on it. -Marna WALLE z/OS Install and Upgrade IBM Poughkkeepsie -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Digitally signed product software packages from IBM
We just got it configured and tested with my standard throwaway ShopZ order, Device Support Facilities. It works great, I'm sure management will love it. Questions: 1) Is there anything on the radar to have SMP/e enforce package signature validation if the package is signed? 2) Ditto to have the ability for SMP/e not receive unsigned packages/products? Using GIM facility classes to manage it would work for me. Mark Jacobs Sent from ProtonMail, Swiss-based encrypted email. GPG Public Key - https://api.protonmail.ch/pks/lookup?op=get=markjac...@protonmail.com --- Original Message --- On Tuesday, May 16th, 2023 at 4:30 PM, Charles Mills wrote: > > If the signature is stored alongside the GIMZIP they could simply alter > > both. > > > Yep, they could, but they would have about a one in a zillion chance of doing > so successfully. You would need the private key of the signer to get it > right. The digital signature is a hash of the software, encrypted with the > signer's private key. The hash algorithms are such that it is nearly > impossible to change the software but keep the same hash, and with a > different hash you need to have that private key to be able to make a > signature that will decrypt with the relevant well-known public key. > > > which you trust more, DigiCert or your RACF > > > The trustworthiness of CAs is one of the weakest parts of PKI and TLS. > Nothing against DigiCert -- they are fine folks, and I am sure have a robust > security program -- but CA's have been hacked with malicious effect. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DigiNotar#Issuance_of_fraudulent_certificates > > Charles > > On Tue, 16 May 2023 13:31:39 -0500, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aol.com wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 May 2023 13:04:44 -0500, Charles Mills wrote: > > > > > Correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is that signing the package > > > protects (among other things) against the scenario in which one of your > > > associates, who let us assume is a bad guy, makes a zap-type modification > > > to the package after you download it and before you install it, thereby > > > compromising the integrity of your z/OS. Obviously, security for the > > > download will not protect against that, but package signing will. > > > > OK. Verifying the signature at the point of RECEIVE FROMNTS protects against > > (fe)malefactors' compromising the GIMZIP between download and RECEIVE. > > If the signature is stored alongside the GIMZIP they could simply alter > > both. > > > > And the SMPPTS must be protected until APPLY/ACCEPT, and the Target and > > DLIBs indefinitely. > > > > Some of this depends on which you trust more, DigiCert or your RACF > > configuration. > > SMPNTS is a zFS hierarchy. How vulnerable is that? > > > > -- > > gil > > > > -- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
FTP client question
Hi all, I have a question about routing FTP traffic. First a bit about the environment. Z14-zr1 with (2) 1-GbE OSA adapters shared across 3 LPARs. The 2 adapters are not in a VIPA configuration. Right now on this LPAR, only 1 of the adapters is defined to TCP/IP. I can easily get the second OSA configured into TCP/IP on the LPAR so that's not an issue. The situation/question. I have 3 jobs that run on the mainframe that all 3 initiate an FTP process to Windows servers. Between the 3 jobs they are pushing between 1.5 and 2 terabytes to the servers. The jobs are currently single threaded and from looking at the FTP output, they are pushing the Ethernet adapter that is in use at 100%. My question is this: If I configure the second adapter, is there a way that I can force one of these jobs to use one of the OSA adapters and the other 2 to go to the second adapter? From what I recall, z/OS doesn't do any kind of trunking or load balancing so setting up a VIPA won't improve throughput by using both adapters. I've meandered through the IP configuration reference and see nothing that would give me this capability. TIA Rex -- The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from disclosure and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution, copying, or any action taken or action omitted in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Installing a new version of z/OS using z/OSMF
On Wed, 24 May 2023 11:37:25 +, Gadi Ben-Avi wrote: >Hi, >I've been tasked with installing a new version of z/OS. >The only way to do it these days is to use z/OSMF. > >I've done this many times using the ServerPac dialog, so I'm familiar with >that process. > >We are currently using z/OS v2.3 which is already unsupported, so IBM is not >really helping. > >Do you know of any resources that would help me with this? > It's not the only way. You can still order and install a z/OS CBPDO. Art Gutowski -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: openssl libraries
I have the tarball for openssl-1.0.2k-src_b004.170414.tar.gz if you want it. DM me Matt Hogstrom m...@hogstrom.org “It may be cognitive, but, it ain’t intuitive." — Hogstrom > On May 25, 2023, at 10:00 AM, Radoslaw Skorupka > <0471ebeac275-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > Some z/OS Unix program require *.h files from openssl for compilation. > > Q: How can I get the openssl? > Is Rocket Software download right way? > AFAIK the Ported Tools is replaced with the above. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
openssl libraries
Some z/OS Unix program require *.h files from openssl for compilation. Q: How can I get the openssl? Is Rocket Software download right way? AFAIK the Ported Tools is replaced with the above. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: zOSMF
Classification: Confidential It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious! -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Shaffer, Terri Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 11:52 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: zOSMF [CAUTION: This Email is from outside the Organization. Unless you trust the sender, Don't click links or open attachments as it may be a Phishing email, which can steal your Information and compromise your Computer.] Completely agree with the overhead and complicatedness! You know what's sad, is when I started in mainframes 39 years ago, The old IBM SE sat with me gave me the basics, etc and said go for it on a test system. And you learned actually what each process did. I have seen even today system programmers that are clueless, all they were told was follow steps 1 thru 10, and if it fails in step x, they have no clue what to do. This is the problem with z/OSMF and especially the new software instance install BS, its trying to make it idiot proof, but everyones SMS, volumes, catalogs, etc are all different and it doesn't work, or not easily. Us old timers, are the only ones that really understand z/OS, could build a system from scratch, understand NIP, NET, JES2 and how everything works together. I have worked at 7 different companies in my 39 years and maintenance was pretty much always done the same way. Build the jobs once, change Volsers, zones, etc and submit. No GUI clicky BS, processor intensive, certificate ridden process, that's removed from the actual LPAR. And when z/OSMF doesn't work, then deer in headlights start to occur! Ms Terri E Shaffer Senior Systems Engineer, z/OS Support: ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592) terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Pommier, Rex Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 10:53 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: zOSMF EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Hi Rob and Terri, I'll weigh in here from the opposite end of the spectrum. From my POV, z/OSMF is nothing but overhead for us. We have a very small system. 2 LPARs, no sysplex, nothing difficult about it. We build a new OS on one of them and clone it to the other and we're done. All z/OSMF is going to do for us is add complexity to a simple system. And I agree with Terri and Barbara that the next gen of sysprog won't have a clue where to go looking when z/OSMF breaks. Rex -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Rob Schramm Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 9:18 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: zOSMF See you are missing the point. If you have 117 lpars, of course you going to work on making the process actually work. Because every minute you save in that process is worth 2 hours. The point is is that for each institution that's done that there's a bunch that haven't or they've got some jammed together process that breaks every single time that somebody new touches it. And it's not standardized then it's not maintained and it's poorly documented and it's... you know... ad infinitum ad nauseam. So for you ... I agree it's probably more of a pain in the neck. And there will probably be some sort of compromise eventually. But for all the people that have these other processes, I think the standardization that is going to come from this will ultimately make this a lot easier. And the dealing with the myriad of ISP software and IBM non server pack software or stuff that could be on the server pack but doesn't actually belong there... This should help immeasurably so once again I will disagree with your disagreement. Rob On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 20:12 Shaffer, Terri < 017d5f778222-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > When I worked at Chase bank, We had 117 LPARS and maintenance/clone > was a > 30 minute task. So adding z/OSMF was never even brought up as a > consideration. > > So while I understand the direction IBM is headed, its adding LOTS of > layers to something that sound not be hard. Running thru screens vs > submitting a canned job, is hours vs minutes. > > As much as I love my job and starting with MVS 1.3.8 to now z/OS 2.5 > and even OS/390, they have added a layer of complexity that eliminated > the KISS principle, sadly. > > So I have to disagree.. > > Ms Terri E Shaffer > Senior Systems Engineer, > z/OS Support: > ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter > H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592) > terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf Of Rob Schramm > Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 4:27 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: zOSMF > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know > the content is safe. > > > I think the
Re: Effective REGION
W dniu 24.05.2023 o 03:26, Phil Smith III pisze: Radoslaw Skorupka wrote: Scenario: Default REGION REGION specified explicitely in JOB card (or in another similar way) SMFLIMxx and/or IEFUSI. Q: how to check effective REGION limit for the job/stc? Does this help? L R7,PSAAOLD-PSAaddress of ASCB USING ASCB,R7 L R7,ASCBLDA USING LDA,R7 L R2,ABOVESZ MVC 0(4,R2),LDAELIM size of region above the line L R2,ABOVEAL MVC 0(4,R2),LDAELOAL size of region above the line L R2,BELOWSZ MVC 0(4,R2),LDALIMIT size of region below the line L R2,BELOWAL MVC 0(4,R2),LDALOALsize of region below the line L R2,REGSZ MVC 0(4,R2),LDAREGRQ actual region size Unfortunately no, however I appreciate your effort. Thank you! No, because I'm assembler (almost) illiterate. No, because as far as I understand it is good to find out current values "from inside" of the task. However I reviewed SMF30 data and I think this is the direction I should follow. That means some report I have to create. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Are Banks Breaking Up With Mainframes? | Forbes
W dniu 24.05.2023 o 11:03, David Crayford pisze: On 21/5/2023 1:51 am, Tom Brennan wrote: I'm not talking about 20 years ago. You said, "Walmart used to have multiple mainframes" Implication: They currently have only 1 or zero. That's not the case, and I think you would be surprised at the count. I can make an educated guess at two: one for production/development purposes and another for disaster recovery. During my time in the 90s at British Telecom, they were the largest mainframe customer in the UK. They operated 32 data centers across the country, with an impressive six located in London alone. The latest information I have suggests that they now maintain two data centers in London specifically for running legacy applications, one of them is a DR machine. The billing system I used to work on has since been replaced. Previously, they had a dedicated global billing unit that developed custom systems. However, it seems they have transitioned to off-the-shelf solutions capable of real-time billing, eliminating the need for overnight batch processing. Poland. The largest (almost the only one) national telecom. Early 90's - several (17? 23?) companies ran billing system for the telecom. Various systems, platforms, functionalities... Late 90's - one billing systems, still several instances distributed across the country. ~1999 - they started to build their own data centers. Not one, but 4 or 5. It had no real sense, but they did it. OK, they built 3 and started fourth. Then new owner decided to stop the madness and consolidate it. However they decided to ...drop existing data centers and create yet another one. In another city. They proposed employees to relocate few hundred kilometers. At the beginning single z/OS ran multiple instances of the billing system. Then it was consolidated somehow, and sysplexed. Then owner decided to get rid off the mainframe. To Oracle. The cost of the project was approx. $100M Then they had *almost* everything migrated. All but very large, very profitable customers. Mainframe system was kept for years to support them. Finally they closed mainframe. Few years earlier they started some project to manage license costs which grew up exponentially. The costs of new "open systems" solution. BTW: How to report success after n-th missed deadline? They sold the mainframe to external company and bought the service. SaaS. Number of mainframe installations over the years: ~17 - 4 - 1 - 0 ...plus a-lot-of-midrange-servers (hundreds, not dozens). -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: COBOL Field Length problem
I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's a compiler bug. I recreated the
issue (with this program) with both V6.3 and V6.4.
I also "solved" the issue by using BYTE-LENGTH instead of LENGTH. But that's
just a work-around, of course. So you need to open a CASE with IBM to get it
fixed.
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Binyamin Dissen
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 10:42 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: COBOL Field Length problem
My next step would be to look at the generated code to see if it is using the
right element. I am not super trustful of compilers.
On Wed, 24 May 2023 16:25:21 + Billy Ashton
wrote:
:>Hey everyone - back again with another COBOL problem. Your help with my
:>COPY REPLACING question was great and the programmer is quite happy with
:>that solution. Now, he came to me with what looks like a problem, and I
:>am not sure if we are doing something wrong, or if it is a bug in our
:>Enterprise COBOL for z/OS 6.3.0 P220314 system.
:>
:>In a nutshell, when using the LENGTH(TRIM(some-field)) function against
:>any elementary data item, it works great. However, when using it against
:>an item within an occurs (think data table), every reference beyond 1
:>gets handled as item #1. For example, if I have a group with 8 items,
:>the length of item #1 is right, but the length of item(2) through
:>item(8) is always the value of item(1). The table index can be display
:>numeric, packed, or binary, and the results are the same, so I don't
:>think it is a problem with the index, but somehow the reference is not
:>resolved correctly within the nested function.
:>
:>Maybe a short program would be helpful. I hope a 60 line program is ok!
:>Let me know what you think is happening.
:>
:>IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
:>PROGRAM-ID. TSTPG002.
:>ENVIRONMENT DIVISION.
:>Configuration Section.
:>Repository.
:>Function All Intrinsic.
:>DATA DIVISION.
:>WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
:>01 WS.
:>05 INL-NO PIC S9(08) VALUE ZERO BINARY.
:>05 INL-I1 PIC S9(08) VALUE ZERO BINARY.
:>05 INL-I2 PIC S9(08) VALUE ZERO BINARY.
:>05 INL-H PIC S9(08) VALUE ZERO BINARY.
:>05 IN-GRP-X.
:>10 L1 PIC X(65) VALUE '* THIS_IS_A_COMMENT Here .28'.
:>10 L2 PIC X(65) VALUE SPACE.
:>10 L3 PIC X(65) VALUE 'COMND VALUE1 17'.
:>10 L4 PIC X(65) VALUE 'COMND VALUE2 21'.
:>10 L5 PIC X(65) VALUE ' COMND VALUE3 21'.
:>10 L6 PIC X(65) VALUE 'COMND VALUE4 15 '.
:>10 L7 PIC X(65) VALUE ' COMND VAL* 27 '.
:>10 L8 PIC X(65) VALUE '* THIS_IS_A_COMMENT... 29'.
:>05 REDEFINES IN-GRP-X OCCURS 8.
:>10 IN-LINE PIC X(65).
:>05 Hold-L PIC X(65).
:>05 I1 PIC S9(08) VALUE ZERO Binary.
:>05 I2 PIC S9(08) VALUE ZERO.
:>
:>PROCEDURE DIVISION.
:>PERFORM VARYING I1 FROM 1 BY 1 UNTIL I1 GREATER 8
:>Move I1 to I2
:>Move In-line(I1) to Hold-L
:>Display I1 ' '
:>'+1+2+3+4'
:>'+5+6+'
:>Display ' Original: >' IN-LINE(I1) '<'
:>Display ' Trim: >' Trim(In-line(I1) Trailing) '<'
:>Compute INL-I1 = Length(Trim(In-line(I1) Trailing))
:>Compute INL-I2 = Length(Trim(In-line(I2) Trailing))
:>Compute INL-H = Length(Trim(Hold-L Trailing))
:>Evaluate TRUE
:> When I1 = 1 Compute INL-NO = Length(Trim(L1 Trailing))
:> When I1 = 2 Compute INL-NO = Length(Trim(L2 Trailing))
:> When I1 = 3 Compute INL-NO = Length(Trim(L3 Trailing))
:> When I1 = 4 Compute INL-NO = Length(Trim(L4 Trailing))
:> When I1 = 5 Compute INL-NO = Length(Trim(L5 Trailing))
:> When I1 = 6 Compute INL-NO = Length(Trim(L6 Trailing))
:> When I1 = 7 Compute INL-NO = Length(Trim(L7 Trailing))
:> When Other Compute INL-NO = Length(Trim(L8 Trailing))
:>End-Evaluate
:>Display ' Lengths:'
:>' I1(' INL-I1 ')'
:>' I2(' INL-I2 ')'
:>' Hold(' INL-H ')'
:>' By name(' INL-NO ')'
:>Display ' '
:>END-PERFORM
:>GOBACK.
:>
:>Thank you and best regards,
:>Billy Ashton
:>
:>--
:>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
:>send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu
