AW: Removing JES2 PRT and RMT definitions

2017-05-18 Thread Peter Hunkeler
>Since the JES2-L list seems to be defunct, and I have not found a conclusive >answer in the archives nor the books, ... Have you been able to search the archives of the JES2-L list? Last time I tried I did not succeed. -- Peter Hunkeler

Re: Mischaracterized HOLDDATA

2017-05-18 Thread Tom Conley
Point of clarity here. When SMP/E added the HOLDDATA report, they added the ability to exclude any category, and many sysprogs immediately excluded DOC, thinking they were a waste of time to look at. Whenever I talked about looking at ALL HOLDDATA, even the DOCs, because sometimes it's

Re: Mischaracterized HOLDDATA

2017-05-18 Thread Pommier, Rex
Agreed, a better wording for me would have been "I would prefer it included an action hold rather than JUST a doc hold in this case." Rex -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tom Marchant Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 3:38

Re: Mischaracterized HOLDDATA

2017-05-18 Thread Tom Marchant
On Thu, 18 May 2017 20:26:03 +, Pommier, Rex wrote: >I would prefer it be an action hold rather than a doc hold in this case. It isn't either/or. Sometimes it is appropriate to have both a DOC and an ACTION hold. -- Tom Marchant

Re: Mischaracterized HOLDDATA

2017-05-18 Thread Jesse 1 Robinson
Whether ACTION or DOC, these instructions need to be qualified many times over. IBM occasionally PEs a PTF over some problem with HOLD data--usually when it's missing. There may be nothing wrong with the code, just the packaging and accompanying--or not--documentation. I'm obviously perturbed

Re: Mischaracterized HOLDDATA

2017-05-18 Thread Tom Marchant
On Thu, 18 May 2017 14:14:10 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >Can IBM repair this even after the fact? I know SMPHOLD may contain >++HOLD ... ACTION. But I doubt that LIST ERRSYSMODS will show it, Do you mean LIST HOLDERROR? or perhaps REPORT ERRSYSMODS? Either way, it will not. Doc and Action

Re: Mischaracterized HOLDDATA

2017-05-18 Thread Pommier, Rex
I don't know of any sysprog in his/her right mind who would willy-nilly perform any SMP/E action hold without going through the hold actions to see if they are required or need tweaking at a particular shop. It's no different from the ServerPac jobs that slam a whole slug of security changes

Re: Mischaracterized HOLDDATA

2017-05-18 Thread Tom Conley
On 5/18/2017 4:00 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: This is a swampy area captured in the caveat 'perform these steps if you choose to use it'. If a shop has not already RDEFINEd MVS.MCSOPER.* with elaborate profile support in place, blandly issuing these commands as documented would immediately

Re: Mischaracterized HOLDDATA

2017-05-18 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On 2017-05-18, at 14:01, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: > This is a swampy area captured in the caveat 'perform these steps if you > choose to use it'. > Ugh. On 2017-05-18, at 13:10, Burrell, Todd wrote: > Well this really should have been labeled as HOLD(ACTION).And I usually > look through

Re: Mischaracterized HOLDDATA

2017-05-18 Thread Jesse 1 Robinson
This is a swampy area captured in the caveat 'perform these steps if you choose to use it'. If a shop has not already RDEFINEd MVS.MCSOPER.* with elaborate profile support in place, blandly issuing these commands as documented would immediately bring a shop to its knees. Putting a HOLD(ACTION)

Re: Mischaracterized HOLDDATA

2017-05-18 Thread Burrell, Todd
Well this really should have been labeled as HOLD(ACTION).And I usually look through the DOC for stuff like this, but I've never seen something quite so egregious. Todd Burrell | Sr. Mainframe Systems Administrator CSX Technologies| 550 Water St. (634I), Jacksonville, FL 32202

Mischaracterized HOLDDATA

2017-05-18 Thread Pinnacle
For those of you who always laughed when I said read your HOLD(DOC) for buried HOLD(ACTION) items. Here it is kids, so for those of you who still ignore HOLD(DOC), keep telling yourselves that you're saving time and I'm crazy for looking at HOLD(DOC). ++HOLD(UI43841) SYSTEM FMID(HSMA21A)

Re: ATTACH with RSAPF=YES

2017-05-18 Thread Tom Marchant
On Thu, 18 May 2017 08:09:03 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: >I hope you are getting the idea how risky this entire approach is. You are >playing "you bet your mainframe." You might get it right today And if you don't get it right, you might discover that, or you might not. It is very difficult

Re: ATTACH with RSAPF=YES

2017-05-18 Thread Tony Harminc
On 18 May 2017 at 08:56, Robin Atwood wrote: > What is the situation of a module that is loaded from an authorised library > but was linked with AC=0? Is it authorised? Can it get authorised? > Modules are not authorized. Job steps are authorized. If you are able to get

Re: ATTACH with RSAPF=YES

2017-05-18 Thread Charles Mills
"Magic" SVCs are the scourge of z/OS integrity. The amount of validation you have to do to make a magic SVC airtight exceeds the burden of simply doing it right: linking the program AC=1 into an APF-authorized library. They used to be common in vendor products: easier to write a magic SVC than

Re: ATTACH with RSAPF=YES

2017-05-18 Thread Jesse 1 Robinson
Early versions of SDSF provided an SVC that would make the user authorized. It was 'supported' in that it was part of an official IBM program product. There was a general discomfort with this strategy even though the SVC code tried very hard to validate the environment. Eventually (I believe)

Re: ATTACH with RSAPF=YES

2017-05-18 Thread Charles Mills
Tom answered most of your question but in addition > Can it get authorised? I don't think there is any supported way for a program that is already running to "get authorized." I hope you are getting the idea how risky this entire approach is. You are playing "you bet your mainframe." You might

Re: setrog lnklst question

2017-05-18 Thread Peter Relson
>UPDATE JOB(*) is dangerous >However, we use it with no ill effect. To be picky, that cannot be a wholly correct statement. What might be correct is that you have observed no ill effects in the times that you have used it so far. Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design

Re: ATTACH with RSAPF=YES

2017-05-18 Thread Tom Marchant
On Thu, 18 May 2017 19:56:27 +0700, Robin Atwood wrote: >What is the situation of a module that is loaded from an authorised library >but was linked with AC=0? Is it authorised? Can it get authorised? Loaded by whom? When you EXEC PGM=x, if program X is linked AC=1 and is loaded from an APF

Re: ATTACH with RSAPF=YES

2017-05-18 Thread Robin Atwood
What is the situation of a module that is loaded from an authorised library but was linked with AC=0? Is it authorised? Can it get authorised? Thanks Robin -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Relson Sent: 16 May 2017

CICS Transaction Server Version 5.4 Announced

2017-05-18 Thread Timothy Sipples
IBM has announced CICS Transaction Server Version 5.4: https://www.ibm.com/common/ssi/rep_ca/3/897/ENUS217-113/ENUS217-113.PDF This release of CICS supports the *full* Java Enterprise Edition (JEE) 7 specification -- really quite amazing. There are also some interesting and useful batch