In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 04/22/2006
at 07:02 PM, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>[5] A PU is always type 2. There is no qualification possible for the
>"2". There are masses of misleading instances of the horrible term PU
>2.1 - it hurts my fingers to type it - out there, some of it
>shamefully at the hands of VTAM developers who know they know better
>- just try asking one. The only trivial excuse is that "PU' takes up
>less space than "node". In other words, it's "node" that can be
>qualified as type 2.0 or type 2.1, not "PU".
Do you have documentation for that/ While admittedly old, my copy of
Format and Protocol Reference Manual claims that it is the PU that has
a type designation and that "type i node" is an alias for "PU_Ti node"
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
