In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 09/18/2006
at 05:51 PM, Paul Gilmartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>But, now I'm curious. Is there any good rationale that
>any program with AC=1 in an authorized library shouldn't run with APF
>authorization when CALLed from TSO.
Is there any reason why it should? It's easy enough for management to
add programs if they wish to do so.
Now, there might be a business case for a requirement to allow
specifying a program name of "*" as a wildcard in IKJTSOxx. But I
suspect that many shops would prohibit its use.
>What happens when a program with AC=0 is (inadvertently) entered in
>AUTHPGM names and CALLed?
It runs with AC(0).
--
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
