On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 11:30:24 -0800, Skip Robinson jo.skip.robin...@sce.com
wrote:
I never saw a reply to Lizette's post. We also have an interest in the
same topic. We want to encourage members of the technical staff to manage
our sandbox LPARs rather than pester--er, request--Operations to shut
...@gmail.com
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU,
Date: 12/17/2012 08:09 AM
Subject:Re: BCPII and activation profile
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 11:30:24 -0800, Skip Robinson
jo.skip.robin...@sce.com wrote:
I never saw a reply
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:16:06 -0800, Skip Robinson jo.skip.robin...@sce.com
wrote:
As for the need to check SAF: if HMC provided full granularity of access
control, we wouldn't even need BCPii. We could just let all Tech Support
folks get to HMC and let him enforce the rules: allow Tech Support
:BCPII and activation profile
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
I have a friend who is wondering if there examples of a HWI BCPII that can
alter the activation profile.
He has some ec12s, and z114s, on z/OS V1.13 - Fairly current on most
hardware
I have a friend who is wondering if there examples of a HWI BCPII that can
alter the activation profile.
He has some ec12s, and z114s, on z/OS V1.13 - Fairly current on most hardware
as they have recently gone through a hardware upgrade which includes DS800's.
Thanks
Lizette
