Since the "chicken and egg" situation was (correctly) mentioned, I'll point out that user groups might consider asking for something like: allow ETCON and/or ATSET not to require supervisor state and/or system key if a suitable RACF profile is defined that gives the user suitable authorization (where "suitable" is to be determined)
I can't promise that such a requirement would be accepted, but that is part of what would be needed in order not to need a system LX solely for the purpose of creating the authorizing PC. As far as I know, no one has ever asked for this (surprisingly, to me). P.S. May I suggest a bit of restraint with respect to posting with full reply that shows the entire previous post (which itself was done with full reply)? It gets somewhat tedious for those of us who use "digest" and try to find the "next post" based on its subject, when there are so many (old) posts contained within the new post, each of which has the subject shown. There's probably a better navigation mechanism, but I happen to like low tech when it works. Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
