We received mixed feedback regarding our letter asking customers about their timing for implementing ALLOWUSERKEYCSA(NO). The purpose of the letter was actually to help us in making decisions to move forward that would have the least impact on customers. We had already performed due diligence and had some choices to make as to further design and implementation. It was never about whether we would make the change or not, it was about making it with the least (preferably none) impact on customers. Because of the nature of the product's architecture (and I know many can say the same, but...), the change is just not a simple one, unfortunately. Some would say that we should have taken care of this years ago, and right or wrong, we are taking care of it now. I cannot personally speak for "years ago", as I was not here then. ____________________________________
Johnathan Crossno Senior Product Manager H&W Computer Systems, Inc. www.hwcs.com -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Shirey Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 09:39 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ALLOWUSERKEYCSA(NO) was (Re: CA Jobtrac 3.5 Off Support) I believe SYSB-II requires ALLOWUSERKEYCSA(NO). Some months ago, H&W sent out an email asking for guidance in setting a priority for modifying SYSB-II to make it work with YES. I don't know what kind of response they got, but, given the fact that there's been no fix, it doesn't appear that their customers thought it was a priority either. (I think I neglected to respond at all...) Greg Shirey Ben E. Keith Co. -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Mark Zelden Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:03 AM <snip> While I applaud IBM for finally making this change and all the vendors who are modifying their code for this (and Sam K. and others for pushing the vendors), I really don't have a problem running with ALLOWUSERKEYCSA(YES) on my systems at this point. The exposure has been there forever and making it go away overnight (in relative terms of time) just isn't a big concern for me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
