On Jan 30, 2016, at 11:11 AM, Skip Robinson wrote:
Ah, UADS. A prime example of archaic mechanism. Defensible
technically?
Probably not, although a security administrator who needs to know
which
account numbers or which proclibs a user is authorized to use might
tell a
different story. With UADS, a simple list command tells the story.
With TSOE
segment, it's a data mining operation. This difference alone has
inhibited
conversion in some shops.
Skip:
I disagree with your "defensibility technically" statement.
we have at least two groups that do the RACF definitions and while
they are so so technically they cannot seem to do the job correctly
and add to the measure adding alias's in the mastercats cannot be
trusted to do so reliably. I don't know how many times I have
rewritten(multiple times) rexx and clist and JCL they simply screw
it up sometimes.
I had to rein in the catastrophe that they managed to do.
The UADS is simply far more easy to do than the RACF definition(s).
They regularly screw that up as well and I have had to redo both. Is
this a technical issue (a little) is it a personnel issue
yes , but without firing people there is no easy solution. I
get a JR sysprog to do any TSO adds (or changes) to UADS and it gets
done correctly all the time (although admittedly the change can be
tricky at times)
Ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
