Russ, I tend to agree with you on this. If this particular Health Checker check were to first confirm that PARMLIB DEVSUPxx TAPEAUTHDSN is set to NO, then it makes sense to raise activation of TAPEVOL as an issue. However, the verbiage should probably mention TAPEAUTHDSN as an alternative. I don't know whether the check does or doesn't look at this parameter. Perhaps the check author can shed light on this.
In general, I too think DEVSUPxx is the better way to go, but I wouldn't rule out the use of TAPEVOL universally. An installation with tapes that are not defined to its tape management system could optionally use TAPEVOL profiles to guard them. If they set TAPEAUTHDSN to YES, the TAPEVOL checks are nullified. Regards, Bob Robert S. Hansel Lead RACF Specialist RSH Consulting, Inc. 617-969-8211 www.linkedin.com/in/roberthansel www.rshconsulting.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- 2011 RACF Training > Audit for Results - Boston - APR 12-14 > Intro & Basic Admin - Boston - MAY 10-12 Visit our website for registration & details --------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 09:09:15 -0600 From: Russell Witt <[email protected]> Subject: Re: RACF Resource Classes That is the part I don't understand. With the new DEVSUPxx parameters, why even use TAPEVOL and/or TAPEDSN as RACF options? They perform a similar function and do it better (in my opinion). So, why a HealthCheck to make sure that the old (obsolete?) TAPEVOL class is active? And if you are attempting to control BLP; then it really depends on your tape management system. With RMM, yes you would need this. But with both CA TLMS and CA 1; they have better BLP protection available within them. Russell Witt CA 1 L2 Support Manager -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert S. Hansel (RSH) Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 6:05 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: RACF Resource Classes Dennis, Add CA Endevor, releases earlier than R12, to Sam's list of potential TEMPDSN problem products. See article "TEMPDSN and CA-Endevor" in the April 2009 issue of our RSH RACF Tips Newsletter, a copy of which is available via the following URL: http://www.rshconsulting.com/racfres.htm One reason for activating the TAPEVOL class would be to implement restrictions on the use of Bypass Label Processing (BLP) using the FACILITY class profile ICHBLP when your tape management system is IBM's DFSMSrmm. However, if you activate tape protection using PARMLIB DEVSUPxx parameter TAPAUTHDSN, it isn't necessary to activate TAPEVOL to enable use of the ICHBLP profile. Regards, Bob Robert S. Hansel Lead RACF Specialist RSH Consulting, Inc. 617-969-8211 www.linkedin.com/in/roberthansel www.rshconsulting.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
