Re: you can request improvements to IBM Knowledge Center using the RFE process now

Clark Morris wrote: >IBM needs to be able to have 24/365.24 availability online of Shop Z >series (all software download) and the related problem reporting and >information facilities. Clark, what you're describing is NOT POSSIBLE. Any/every particular public Internet connection does not offer a

Re: you can request improvements to IBM Knowledge Center using the RFE process now

FTR: You can *ask* for enhancements. Doesn't mean there's any interest or commitment in fixing any of the things that make KC unusable for so many. On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Paul Gilmartin < 000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > On Sat, 27 May 2017 19:58:35 -0300, Clark

Re: you can request improvements to IBM Knowledge Center using the RFE process now

On Sat, 27 May 2017 19:58:35 -0300, Clark Morris wrote: >> >>That'd be lovely, but unfortunately it's not possible. The public Internet, >>and your particular connection to it, simply doesn't offer that assurance. > >But from what I read here, the Knowledge Center has nowhere near the >online

Re: you can request improvements to IBM Knowledge Center using the RFE process now

[Default] On 23 May 2017 22:23:19 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main sipp...@sg.ibm.com (Timothy Sipples) wrote: >Allan Staller wrote: >>The RAS for the support systems needs to be as least on the same >>order of magnitude as the systems they are supporting. > >That'd be lovely, but unfortunately

Re: Setting of LNKAUTH available to a program?

Got it. Missed that explicit distinction ("all the libraries in LNKLST just happen to be authorized" as opposed to LNKAUTH=LNKLST) until @Jim emphasized it here. Thanks all. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of

Re: Setting of LNKAUTH available to a program?

But isn't LNKAUTH= an IPL option that would therefore necessarily be consistent and stable across A/S's? Or am I missing some consideration? The LNKAUTH option is of course consistent and stable across address spaces. But my comment was about the DlcbAPF bit which, as I said, does not

Re: RACF Question

Walt, Yes sir I know about RACF-L, i was having a bit of a problem accessing it. Scott On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: > I'm trying again just in case, but I've experienced the same problem > signing up for RACF-L that I've complained about