Shmuel, That is why I added the following explanation/excuse for PU T2.0 being mentioned (and then explained away as being just the same as PU T2 in that explanatory note):
<quote> I suspect that PU T2.0 is mentioned because of the earlier rule that a node always has a PU of the same type. Thus when the type 2 node became the type 2.0 node, the architects felt that they were obliged, very, very strictly - as opposed to only very strictly :-) - to call the PU a type 2.0 PU quite unnecessarily really since it requires that explanatory note in section 6.1. </quote> The "earlier rule" was the one you mentioned from "the original manuals". Moreover there's no question that a pure type 2.1 node, that is, one not containing SSCP-dependent resources, "pure" in the sense that it can quite happily communicate with other type 2.1 nodes with nary an SSCP in sight, does *not* contain a PU. Thus making the description of the node depend upon the type of the PU it contains, as is implied by "... it is the PU that has a type designation and that 'type i node' is an alias for 'PU_Ti node'" obviously breaks down. In the new world where the "PU" entity is optional, the type designation has to go with the "node" entity - and there's no need to drag the type designation of the "PU" entity along with it when the type designation of the "node" entity require sub-designations. I hope that's clear; it doesn't need documentation, only logic. Chris Mason ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 27 April, 2006 4:49 PM Subject: Re: Need Help defining an AS400 with an IP address to the mainframe > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 04/27/2006 > at 03:35 AM, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >Oh horror! In checking this last item I found the following in the > >description of the ACTPU request in the "SNA Formats" manual: "PU > >T2.0|2.1" in the text alongside the X'0E' control vector. The > >gangrene is spreading into the vital organs! > > Except that the original manuals defined node type in terms of PU > type. The "gangrene", if such it be, is older than PU_T2.1! > > -- > 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
