Re: COUPLExx syntax question.

Mark, Thanks for the confirmation. We are moving to new CPCs and want to temporarily define all connections between all old and new CPCs. I was afraid to hit some undocumented 16,32 or 64 limit. I think it would be useful to document this absence of practical limitations. Kees. >

Re: Limit RACF access to ISRSUPC (compare mode)

Jorge Garcia wrote: > I know It's a question about a RACF topic, but we need a workaround to solve > a problem access. We've limited the ISRSUPC program access to the devolpment > teams to avoid searchs in long PDS with many elapsed and cpu time. The > problem that we have It's ISPF use the

Re: KC!?

Paul Gilmartin wrote: >For a while, after I cleared cache, the ToC sidebar wasn't working. Later, it >is. Good. Perhaps they have fixed it. >I suspect it was a transient misbehaior which misled Elardus to a >superstitious conclusion. I have not been misled. I also make no 'superstitious

Re: $AVRS QUESTION - LOCATING SPECIFIC ARCHIVE JOBS

https://seasoft.com/home/sitemap IIRC it was a UCC(Yuck) add on to UCC7 but in the break up and litigation it ended up at SEA along with a few other familiar names. In a message dated 2/1/2017 7:45:00 P.M. Central Standard Time, sysp...@silvio.fastmail.fm writes: $Avrs is SEA,

Re: $AVRS QUESTION - LOCATING SPECIFIC ARCHIVE JOBS

$Avrs is SEA, Software Engineering of America. Regards, Silvio Camplani zSeries Sr. Analyst, Systems Support Bombardier On Wed, Feb 1, 2017, at 06:24 PM, John Dawes wrote: > I did the PF1 but it was no help. I will open a ticket with ROCKET > software (I think they are the vendor)

Re: Debit card PIN block encryption

Are you asking which PIN block formats ICSF supports? https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.2.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r2.csfb400/pbf.htm IBM Knowledge Center www.ibm.com Welcome to IBM

Re: $AVRS QUESTION - LOCATING SPECIFIC ARCHIVE JOBS

In ISPF I know this works. Enter the invalid command. When you get the error in Top Right Hand Corner, hit PF1 (once may be twice) and it should take you to a help panel. Not sure how good the $AVERS Help panels are. Lizette > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List

Re: COBOL/LE question

Rex, I forgot to mention that DO NOT SET RTEREUS(ON) as default. Just set it for the particular job you are having problem with. Something like this //STEP0100 EXEC PGM=yourpgm,PARM='RTEREUS(ON)/any le parms if u have' Here are some old topics on migration

Re: COBOL/LE question

IGZ0268W means that OS/VS COBOL is trying to interface with COBOL 5. Which is a no-no. Thanks, Tom Savor Software Developer, Sr FRMS-SCM Fiserv -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to

Re: COBOL/LE question

The most common problem in a recovery routine is failure to restore registers properly. The older the code, the more likely you are to hit such a glitch. I once debugged a bizarre COBOL program error that was completely inexplicable. I set a SLIP trap for the 'first' error, which turned out to

Re: $AVRS QUESTION - LOCATING SPECIFIC ARCHIVE JOBS

I did the PF1 but it was no help. I will open a ticket with ROCKET software (I think they are the vendor) Thanks. On Wed, 1/2/17, Leonardo Vaz wrote: Subject: Re: $AVRS QUESTION - LOCATING SPECIFIC ARCHIVE JOBS To:

Re: COBOL/LE question

i am guess the c/vs was nores nodynam and the asm90 is your real trouble maker Sent from my iPhone Steve Beaver > On Feb 1, 2017, at 16:58, Steve Beaver wrote: > > Rex OS VS call Wold to call Bob five is a big jump > > Sent from my iPhone > Steve Beaver > > >> On

Re: COBOL/LE question

Rex OS VS call Wold to call Bob five is a big jump Sent from my iPhone Steve Beaver > On Feb 1, 2017, at 16:55, Pommier, Rex wrote: > > We're starting down that path. Management doesn't want to have to recompile > things but I'm thinking we may need to do so just

Re: COBOL/LE question

when all else fails you may have to do them one at a time as the problems crop up Sent from my iPhone Steve Beaver > On Feb 1, 2017, at 16:55, Pommier, Rex wrote: > > We're starting down that path. Management doesn't want to have to recompile > things but I'm

Re: COBOL/LE question

We're starting down that path. Management doesn't want to have to recompile things but I'm thinking we may need to do so just to see if that's the problem. Rex -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Steve Beaver Sent:

Re: COBOL/LE question

I have a simple question do you happen to have a the source modules that if you attempted to reassemble them and recompile them to see if that's the problem Sent from my iPhone Steve Beaver > On Feb 1, 2017, at 16:41, Pommier, Rex wrote: > > Hello all, > > We are

Re: Debit card PIN block encryption

Mike, I think you may be "spinning your wheels" because no one said from what perspective exactly they want you to look into it. Tell them you've done that, then ask what specifically they want to know. Are these people application types? Do they want to know what's changed from v1.13

COBOL/LE question

Hello all, We are in the process of migrating from z/OS 1.13 to 2.2. We just ran into an issue with our COBOL and LE environment. We are running COBOL 4.2. Within the maintenance for COBOL and the upgrade in LE from 1.13 to 2.2, IBM introduced the warning message "IGZ0268W An invocation was

Re: Debit card PIN block encryption

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9564 Several official parts of 9564. This is just one. http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=61246 On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Ward, Mike S wrote: > Hello all, we have a z13s running z/os V1.13 soon to be V2.2 and I had a >

Re: Limit RACF access to ISRSUPC (compare mode)

And an answer to the OP's original performance problem could be to adjust his WLM for TSO sessions to have a 3rd period (or 2nd or 4th) where the long running SupreC drops to discretionary. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff

Re: Limit RACF access to ISRSUPC (compare mode)

On 2017-02-01, at 14:01, Sri h Kolusu wrote: And that gives me:Bad Request > > Paul, > > I have no idea as to how to fix your Bad request error from your browser. > Either way that is besides the point, since you found a working link. > As I follow this list, I observe reports of KC

Re: $AVRS QUESTION - LOCATING SPECIFIC ARCHIVE JOBS

Good Point Lizette, PF1 also states it should work under archive; John, I would open a case with the vendor. Leo -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Lizette Koehler Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 4:07 PM To:

Re: $AVRS QUESTION - LOCATING SPECIFIC ARCHIVE JOBS

Did you contact the vendor for assistance? Do the manuals indicating anything? Did you try PF1 (HELP) while in the Panel? Sometimes vendors supply decent help panels. Lizette > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of

Re: z/OS v2.1 and PeopleSoft v8.47

If PPS is in DB2 (and I think it is) then the DB2 List may be helpful. To join, if you have not done so, go to IDUG.ORG. Lizette > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Porowski, Kenneth > Sent: Wednesday, February 01,

Re: Limit RACF access to ISRSUPC (compare mode)

>>> And that gives me:Bad Request Paul, I have no idea as to how to fix your Bad request error from your browser. Either way that is besides the point, since you found a working link. >>> Regardless, unless IEBCOMPR has been enhanced lately, I ask, how does it behave in case of an

Debit card PIN block encryption

Hello all, we have a z13s running z/os V1.13 soon to be V2.2 and I had a question about debit card pin block encryption. We have Crypto processors on the z13 as seen below. I was asked to look into Debit card PIN block encryption, but I'm not sure about what I'm looking at. I looked into the

Re: KC!?

On 2017-02-01, at 06:28, Allan Staller wrote: > That being said, the original link works when I tried it a few mins ago. > For a while, after I cleared cache, the ToC sidebar wasn't working. Later, it is. KC is way too exciting. I suspect it was a transient misbehaior which misled Elardus

Re: Limit RACF access to ISRSUPC (compare mode)

On 2017-02-01, at 10:02, Sri h Kolusu wrote: > Jorge, > > If you just want your developers to only use compare function, they can > use IEBCOMPR. The output is not as fancy as SuperC , but it lists the > differences. > >

Re: z/OS v2.1 and PeopleSoft v8.47

Actually I'm running PS 8.4 and Tools 8.50 on z/OS 1.13 with DB2 10 (v9 compatibility mode). Unfortunately z/OS 1.13 is off support and DB2 10 goes off 09/2017 (not to mention that PS/Tools have been off support for a while). PS is planning on leaving the Mainframe probably by end of 2018 (was

Re: COUPLExx syntax question.

There is no a priori limit on the number of PATHOUT or PATHIN statements that can be specified in the COUPLExx parmlib, nor is there an a priori limit on the number of signal paths (devices or structures) that can be defined therein. You would of course eventually hit some sort of practical

Re: z/OS v2.1 and PeopleSoft v8.47

Put me on the interested parties list! We are 1.12 going to 2.1 very soon. We are DB2 9. We are at 8.49 of the tools so not at your level but still the same concerns ! PeopleSoft v8.9. We have created a test environment running on v2.1, Plans are to upgrade tools to 8.54. Note: 8.54 requires 64

Re: z/OS v2.1 and PeopleSoft v8.47

Hi Ken, my last job PS 8.9 was running OK on 1.13 with no support, sorry to say our solution was to migrate to WorkDay moving forward to 2.1, sorry I cannot be more help. Carmen - Original Message - From: "Kenneth Porowski" To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent:

Re: DIALOG PROCESSING ERROR

There are two kinds of SCPPEENU data sets, one for the "master" dialog, and one per ServerPac order for the "order" dialog. (Some time ago, we changed them so that the master dialog is used only for order management, and the order dialog is actually used to install and manage a particular

z/OS v2.1 and PeopleSoft v8.47

I find myself in a similar situation to the post from Roger listed below although I have not been able to test and see if I have the same result as of yet.. I never saw a reply to the original post (but may have missed it). Does anyone know if Roger ever had his issue resolved or explained?

Re: Dynamic Activate of New IODF

On 2/1/2017 11:45 AM, Elaine Beal wrote: I have made changes to the EDT so need to hard activate the new IODF on my first test system. After I do this the IODF will be out of sync on my other LPARs. Can I still do a soft activate on the out of sync LPARs? (I didn't think you could when the

Re: Dynamic Activate of New IODF

Also read the LOADxx section of Init/Tuning. LOADxx can be told to find a matching IODF token at IPL time. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of R.S. Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 10:53 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Re: Dynamic Activate of New IODF

Activation of a EDT should not require a hard activate. Try a test activate 1st. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Elaine Beal Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 10:46 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Dynamic

Re: Limit RACF access to ISRSUPC (compare mode)

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 10:49:10 -0600 Jorge Garcia wrote: :> I know It's a question about a RACF topic, but we need a workaround to solve a problem access. We've limited the ISRSUPC program access to the devolpment teams to avoid searchs in long PDS with many elapsed and cpu

Re: Limit RACF access to ISRSUPC (compare mode)

Jorge, If you just want your developers to only use compare function, they can use IEBCOMPR. The output is not as fancy as SuperC , but it lists the differences. https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_2.1.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.idau100/iebcomp.htm Kolusu IBM Mainframe Discussion

Re: Limit RACF access to ISRSUPC (compare mode)

W dniu 2017-02-01 o 17:49, Jorge Garcia pisze: Hi all, I know It's a question about a RACF topic, but we need a workaround to solve a problem access. We've limited the ISRSUPC program access to the devolpment teams to avoid searchs in long PDS with many elapsed and cpu time. The problem

Re: DIALOG PROCESSING ERROR

I provided the original post...I was having problems getting the dialogs to work. The problem was because I had issues getting the catalog that the dialog datasets resided on imported, so I created a new set and put them on a different catalog and to do that I had to change the HLQ. The

Re: Dynamic Activate of New IODF

W dniu 2017-02-01 o 17:46, Elaine Beal pisze: I have made changes to the EDT so need to hard activate the new IODF on my first test system. After I do this the IODF will be out of sync on my other LPARs. Can I still do a soft activate on the out of sync LPARs? (I didn't think you could when

Limit RACF access to ISRSUPC (compare mode)

Hi all, I know It's a question about a RACF topic, but we need a workaround to solve a problem access. We've limited the ISRSUPC program access to the devolpment teams to avoid searchs in long PDS with many elapsed and cpu time. The problem that we have It's ISPF use the same program to

Dynamic Activate of New IODF

I have made changes to the EDT so need to hard activate the new IODF on my first test system. After I do this the IODF will be out of sync on my other LPARs. Can I still do a soft activate on the out of sync LPARs? (I didn't think you could when the tokens were out of sync) But I've heard of

Re: DIALOG PROCESSING ERROR

Repost for John... LISTDSI also has a reason code which is often very specific about the error. https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.2.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r2.ikjb800/ikjb800159.htm If you don't see the variable then rerun the

$AVRS QUESTION - LOCATING SPECIFIC ARCHIVE JOBS

G'Day, When I am in the JN or job display option panel in $AVRS ($AVRS JOB SELECTION) I am able to locate the job output for a specific job by issuing the command L TMSBKUP in the command line. However when I am in the $AVRS ARCHIVE HISTORY SELECTION or AH option panel the command does not

Re: COUPLExx syntax question.

W dniu 2017-02-01 o 15:09, Vernooij, Kees (ITOPT1) - KLM pisze: Thanks, because of the absence of negative replies, I assume there are not limits. It would be handy if this had been documented. I think this is the case where technical limit is way out of practical limit. In other words

Re: COUPLExx syntax question.

Thanks, because of the absence of negative replies, I assume there are not limits. It would be handy if this had been documented. Kees. > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Jesse 1 Robinson > Sent: 31 January, 2017

Re: DIALOG PROCESSING ERROR

Vince Getgood wrote: Silly question, but are the Custompac dialog datasets available to your z/OS 2.2 system? I had to import the catalog that contained the HLQ for my CPAC datasets into the new 2.2 master cat when I did my install. For whatever reason, I can't find the post you responded

Re: SFTP on z/OS

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Paul Gilmartin < 000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > ... > > >You can also have ssh display the "ascii art" fingerprint of public key(s) > >for visual verification: > > > Transmitted independently and securely. Courier pouch? > > Remember

Re: KC!?

That being said, the original link works when I tried it a few mins ago. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Allan Staller Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 7:23 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: KC!? NOPE!

Re: KC!?

NOPE! -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 9:16 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: KC!? My bookmark: http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_2.2.0 ...

Re: WAIT ECB=ECBLIST Storage Key

I do have the ASCB parm On the post This my scenario I have a TCP/IP concurrent server in one address space if the program ( in a other addresss space) Aborts the recovery routine posts the concurrent address space to down load the sdwa One ECB is for a EZAMSI READ one if from a another

Re: WAIT ECB=ECBLIST Storage Key

>One ECB is waiting for completion from EZASMI=READ >one ECB is in CSA I trust you realize that having an ECB in common storage typically accomplishes only one thing -- allowing quick post CS if the ECB is not waited on. so you still need the alternate path of issuing the POST macro. For the

Re: Calling bpxwdyn from CA-Easytrieve

Would you be willing to share the process so we don't have to try and piece the whole thing together to reinvent the wheel? Billy On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Hardee, Chuck < chuck.har...@thermofisher.com> wrote: > I was provided a stub program by Peter that he had used to get around a >

Re: DIALOG PROCESSING ERROR

Silly question, but are the Custompac dialog datasets available to your z/OS 2.2 system? I had to import the catalog that contained the HLQ for my CPAC datasets into the new 2.2 master cat when I did my install. -- For