On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:09:30 -0300, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) <shmuel+ibm- [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is my 4th attempt to reply to this posting. Please forgive me if one or more of the previous copies show up. >... >>I think the text you found logically, if not chronologically, >>precedes the introduction of the type 2.1 node and the introduction >>of the "control point" as the entity managing the node rather than >>always the PU. > >Chronologically, which is why I made sure to mention that it was old. >But the PUCP was already there. If you have a recent FAPL manual, is >there a section on nomenclature around p I-8? >... I think all pre-APPN FAPs are very old. A posting on another forum nmentioned that they had never been copied to a (modern) electronic format. They were only available in hardcopy and never went through very many updates. A search of the web shows an -02 version of SNA FORMAT AND PROTOCOL REFERENCE: ARCHITECTURAL LOGIC (SC30-3112). If you have a copy of that I'd strongly recommend you hold onto it. But I even more strongly recomend you let me keep it safe for you. I haven't seen a copy for about 15 years. The old FAPs and other (redundantly named) SNA Architecture manuals indeed mention CPs, but thoses are SSCP, NCP, and (the seldom mentioned) PUCP. I'm pretty These manuals predated the APPN CP. I think the point Chris was making about the PU type is that a PUCP was never an architected part of a T-2.1 node so any PU emulator running on a T_2.1 node is, by definition, emulating a T_2.0 PU. I'm pretty sure Chris is right, but he unfortunately has a world of implementations and documentation arrayed against him. (Sort of like trying stamp out misuse of "USS" as the name of Unix on z/OS.) Every PU-type parameter I've ever seen allows (and ignores) the meaningless .0 or .1 qualification. And VTAM displays of PUs show the node type rather than PU type. This misuse seems to fit, though. Almost every parm on almost every PU definition has nothing to do with a PUCP. They are almost all parms for linkstations, not PU. Since almost every other description of a PU is bogus, why should PY-type be an exception? (I say "almost" because Chris has almost convinced me that a couple of the VTAM and NCP parms on a PU definition actual relate to the PU. Almost. I'd check that if I only had a copy of the FAP.) Pat O'Keefe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
