Lloyd Fuller wrote: >This statement implies that CPACF REQUIRES ICSF. That is NOT true. You can >happily do CPACF operations yourself without ICSF even configured on the >system. IBM's white papers about CPACF performance indicate that ICSF imposes >a >big performance hit on CPACF.
*blush* You're of course correct: in fact, our products CPACF directly. I meant in the Protected Key/Secure Key scenario, though I suppose it's possible that you could do THAT without ICSF too. Thanks for clarifying my unclear clarification! ...phsiii ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
