Paul,
/I wonder what credentials are required for that operation. Perhaps more to
"release" a component code than to request one because a prankster coule wreak
more mischief by freeing a code in use than by gratuitously having one assigned./
ELEMENT is parsimonious with information about other IDs and ID holders. I would assume
that requestor email address, name/title and associated corporate/organisation id are
required to align with the details held by IBM. There's a human being at the IBM end, so
they can choose to continue a dialog with the requestor until "ELEMENT" is
satisfied.
The "keeper of the codes" contact address hasn't always been the "departmental"
[email protected]. Various individuals were the earlier contacts with the consequent risk of
discontinuities as, one way or another, they moved on.
From our perspective, for the last 17 years the system has worked well.
Cheers,
Graeme
On 4/07/2017 1:58 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 11:46:08 +1000, Graeme Gibson ***@ASE*** wrote:
So much time, so little to do!
After all the hoo har about component codes, and me even posting helpful links
et cetera, it turned out that ASE was holding that SYZ id that Brian W. needed!
We don't have a current need for SYZ, so this morning I've asked [email protected] to
"release" it so that Brian's request may be met.
I wonder what credentials are required for that operation. Perhaps more to
"release" a component code than to request one because a prankster coule
wreak more mischief by freeing a code in use than by gratuitously having
one assigned.
And those useful links again:
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_1.13.0/com.ibm.zos.r13.gimb100/gimpkg80125.htm
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_1.13.0/com.ibm.zos.r13.gimb100/gimpkg80127.htm
Interesting. Some decades ago, I sat in on a meeting in which one ISV who had
an
assigned code offered to share part of his name space with another who hadn't
one.
ISV #2 should have been able simply to request his own. Perhaps neither ISV
understood
the process, or the process hadn't been well defined at that early date, or
there may have
been a business relationship or lack of one that precluded ISV #2's obtaining
one.
I believe IBM was then a customer of ISV #1 but not of ISV #2.
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
