On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 15:06:26 -0500, McKown, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip> >> >> So I am wondering how others have their TCPIP libraries set up. >> >> Does anyone or everyone steplib to SEZATCP, or shouldn't this >> be done? >> Does the TCPIP stack need SEZATCP at all? If so, should >> SEZATCP be in the >> LNKLST? Does everyone else have only SEZALOAD in the LNKLST? >> >> TIA for all all those who respond. >> >> Patrick Lyon > >From reading the z/OS 1.6 manual (the TCPIP one, not the CICS one), it >says that SEZATCP should be on the DFHRPL, not the STEPLIB. It also says >that this library contains the CICS interface code, not "general >purpose" code. So I would not put it in the LNKLST, in the TCPIP >procedure, or in the STEPLIB for CICS. It appears to be only needed in >the DFHRPL concatenation. > >But I must also admit that we don't use it, so I am speaking only from >some reading, not experience. > SEZATCP is in the LNKLST here (along with SEZALOAD and SEZALNK2). Can't say the history or exact reasons why (by "mvs group" or request of "network group"). I did see that SEZATCP has LPD, SMPT, PORTMAP, and others in it, so although CICS can sue it from DFHRPL there are other valid reasons for putting it in the LNKLST. Cheers, Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] z/OS and OS390 expert at http://searchDataCenter.com/ateExperts/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
