You could have stepa run on systemA and have a step a1 submit a job via the
internal reader which has a /*route exq to systemB, then have that job on
systemB submit the rest of the job that needs to run on systemA (also via
internal reader).
We had a product which we were in beta test back
Did you compile the hello world example and it abended? I can't believe this
won't compile. IBM does QA so it's hard to believe the commonly used features
fail with this abend.
CEETEST and DLL are used less. The abend is probably occurring for one of
these.
You can just wait for IBM since
Charles Mills wrote, re hash uniqueness:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function
>Read the third and fourth bullets.
Indeed. Since the odds of a hash collision with any modern hashing algorithm
are lower than the odds of a random bit-flip, it's not
worth worrying about.
On 2019-08-27 7:14 AM, Joseph Reichman wrote:
I opened a PMR with IBM they said they were able to recreate the problem and
would get back to me wednesday
I would think this would take 5 minutes to fix
It might take them 5 minutes to fix the bug but the whole process of
getting it tested,
I only situation I can think of where I could raise a SEV 1 for a
compiler ABEND is if it always abended. In my experience I haven't found
a compiler abend yet that I couldn't work around.
On 2019-08-27 12:03 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
Drifting off-topic here but when I owned a company with a
I tried amode 31 and got an abend I did take some of the includes out I am
surprised I came up with it how many shops use XL C they should abending as well
> On Aug 26, 2019, at 8:29 PM, Jon Perryman wrote:
>
> Finding the compile time problem could take some time. If it's a missing
>
Finding the compile time problem could take some time. If it's a missing ifdef
or looping macro, then it will be an easy fix but more difficult to find
because it will be in an include..
This is a compiler abend. MAIN does not have anything obvious missing to cause
a compiler abend so the
They parms are in a record which is mapped by
SYS1.MODGEN(AMDSADDO). Currently, it happens to be
around record #1020.
AMDSADDO is not classified as a Programming Interface.
Jim Mulder z/OS Diagnosis, Design, Development, Test IBM Corp.
Poughkeepsie NY
"IBM Mainframe Discussion
Jon
You are right on I saw those messages from the compiler
I tried to take out a number statements and still got it
I opened a PMR with IBM they said they were able to recreate the problem and
would get back to me wednesday
I would think this would take 5 minutes to fix
I saw some free C
You never mentioned this this was a compile time abend. I assumed it was a run
time abend.
Compile the hello world to make sure it's not a general compiler problem.
Add statements gradually. When it starts abending, that should be the statement
causing the problem.
I suspect a header is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function
Read the third and fourth bullets.
Read the whole article, for that matter.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Jon Perryman
Sent: Monday, August 26,
Non-repudiation for the message is not guaranteed by a hash. There is more
than 1 message that could match that hash.
Jon.
On Monday, August 26, 2019, 02:42:27 PM PDT, Charles Mills
wrote:
Yow! Expensive in terms of CPU time.
Wouldn't (ideally at least) foo encrypt it with a random
But much shorter plaintext to encrypt. Around 256 or 512 bits each, rather
than whatever the length of the e-mail is.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Seymour J Metz
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 2:50 PM
To:
I only bet on sure things. It could be a packaging error, a prior user error or
(unlikely) an error in SMP/E. In all of those cases, however, it's best to
consult with the vendors before doing anything that might mess things up more.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
That depends on what Phil Smith III meant by "Ah, ok. Reveals my ignorance of
how PGP works. Voltage SecureMail uses both, providing that non-repudiation; I
guess I assumed everyone did!"
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
Those alternatives also involve two pairs of keys.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Charles Mills
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 5:42 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re:
Hi all,
Is there a way to reverse engineer
the AMDSADMP parms used to create
the dump program from the
Sys1.pagedump dataset
Thanks.
Shivang Sharma
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email
Yow! Expensive in terms of CPU time.
Wouldn't (ideally at least) foo encrypt it with a random secret key and then
send it to bar encrypted with bar's public key?
To provide non-repudiation -- to sign a document -- it is only necessary for
the sender to encrypt a hash of the message with the
Isn't that what was just discussed? What am I missing here?
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 4:42 PM Seymour J Metz wrote:
> The proper way to provide encryption and non-repudiation is to have two
> key pairs. You sign a message using your private key. People wanting to
> send you encrypted data encrypt
I really don't think this is a packaging error; as noted by Tom Conley, those
are exceedingly rare. If one occurs, there should be a lightning quick HOLD
record that would show up in any APPLY attempt. The date on the 'offending' PTF
is mid 2017; we're not looking at something hot off the
I found the third RSA number that is used to eliminate collisions. I was
talking about the exponent which is a coprime to the modulus of the primes.
Apparently the exponent does not need to be a prime.
wiki page - key generation - step 4 : "Choose an integer e such that 1 < e <
λ(n) and
The proper way to provide encryption and non-repudiation is to have two key
pairs. You sign a message using your private key. People wanting to send you
encrypted data encrypt using your public key. So if foo wants to send bar a
signed encrypted document, foo double encrypts it with foo's
CM Poncelet wrote:
>Because a sender does not need to have an own public/private key-pair,
>but needs only the public keys of the recipients to send encrypted
>emails to them.
Ah, ok. Reveals my ignorance of how PGP works. Voltage SecureMail uses both,
providing that non-repudiation; I
Thank you very much Peter!
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Peter Relson
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 9:41 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ICSF CSN ALET-qualified callable services
It would be very surprising if there were any
On 2019-08-26, at 11:13:44, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>
> If you are configured for an automatic EOF on new files, then Allocation
> writes the EOF before your application gets control; there is no OPEN
> involved.
>
I understand Allocation writes no EOF if it can't determine DSORG.
A silly
Because a sender does not need to have an own public/private key-pair,
but needs only the public keys of the recipients to send encrypted
emails to them.
BTW Some links if interested in putting this to the test:
[PRZ's website:]
https://philzimmermann.com/EN/findpgp/
[free GPG/PGP websites:]
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 17:42:35 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>RSA only involves two primes. See
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_(cryptosystem)
From: Jon Perryman
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 4:29 PM
I vaguely recall that there was a third prime
The listserv's web interface *is* e-mail software. It's not uncommon for
webmail software to be broken, softimes badly broken. Take gmail - please!
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf
RSA only involves two primes. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_(cryptosystem)
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Jon
Perryman
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 4:29 PM
To:
If you are configured for automatic EOF, then Allocation will write an EOF
regardless of the program name; there's nothing special about IEFBR14 except
for a performance tweak. There is no OPEN involved.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu
In a message dated 8/26/2019 10:30:42 AM Central Standard Time,
awh...@metlife.com writes:
>SET IBM-MAIN Digest
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send
It's been a while, but my default mode is to track down what's wrong with the
packaging, contact the vendor and work with him to resolve it. Except in
emergencies I don't develop my own workaround.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
On 8/26/2019 10:11 AM, fred glenlake wrote:
Hi List,
I am looking for some direction on how to get up to speed with GDPS, Metro
Mirror, Global Mirror, etc. My site has been a single site for quite some
time and DR tests have been go to a DR provider, lug the physical tapes along
of the
Did you try Type 42 subtype 27, VTOC update? Since you mentioned all of the
60 records, I assume the file is VSAM, surprised that there's nothing in a
69 recprd.
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 12:34 PM Charles Mills wrote:
> SMF 118 and/or its preferred replacement, SMF 119, has to be enabled in
>
If you are configured for an automatic EOF on new files, then Allocation writes
the EOF before your application gets control; there is no OPEN involved.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on
SMF 118 and/or its preferred replacement, SMF 119, has to be enabled in *two*
places: SMFPRMxx (just like any other SMF type) and also in the TCPIP config
file. (And perhaps in a third place for FTP -- I'm trying to remember.)
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion
Well depending on how TCP/IP was setup/configured you could be cutting type 119
records. It was suggested in another email to download the DAF software from
the CBT website. I like using that software because it will search lots of
different SMF record types to show activity related to
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Basil Kanneth"
> Date: August 26, 2019 at 12:03:13 PM EDT
> To: Joseph Reichman
> Subject: RE: Case TS002648607 (PMR 76523,082,000) - Compiler abend
>
> Thanks Joseph.
> So I'll go ahead and reduce it to a Sev2 then. Let me know if you have any
> concerns
Interesting hypothesis. Should be easy enough to verify.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Ron Hawkins
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 11:25 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: SMF PUZZLE
All,
Could it
Drifting off-topic here but when I owned a company with a roomful of developers
it used to annoy me that "CICS is down and all our clerks are dead in the
water" was worthy of a Sev 1 in IBM's mind but "the C compiler is down and all
our programmers are dead in the water" was not. "That's a
was a the dataset renamed possibly? not created, if so there should be an SMF
60-64 breadcrumb I believe to see if it was renamed from another dataset ?
Carmen Vitullo
- Original Message -
From: "willie bunter" <001409bd2345-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
To:
Roger,
I looked for SMF 118 but nothing turned up. Thanks for the suggestion.
On Sunday, August 25, 2019, 10:45:43 a.m. UTC, Roger Lowe
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 17:29:30 +, willie bunter
wrote:
>Good Day,
>I am trying to find the user/job which created a dsn. I run my
I think that's normal for the binder to not show the module information for
your exported functions & variables, because they are being exported by the
module currently being bound, so it's sort of superfluous.
For historical reasons the binder uppercases things. You can either use the
Exclude should not be needed. A PMR should be opened so that the problem can
be fixed correctly.
Most often, users cause this error by specifying REDO but there are a few other
rare causes that usually require PMR to fix the problem.
Jon.
On Monday, August 26, 2019, 05:54:33 AM PDT,
Class=A and class=B has nothing to do with system. The job card has a system
affinity parameter to run that job on a specific system.
Running a step on another system is rarely the correct answer. You would be
blocking the initiator. Additionally, resources are shared so that job is
probably
SET IBM-MAIN Digest
The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is for the
intended addressee only. Any unauthorized use, dissemination of the
information, or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the
intended addressee, please notify the sender
Hi List,
I am looking for some direction on how to get up to speed with GDPS, Metro
Mirror, Global Mirror, etc. My site has been a single site for quite some
time and DR tests have been go to a DR provider, lug the physical tapes along
of the latest backups and spend a few days restoring
CM Poncelet wrote:
>Possibly - but probably not "encrypted with ... possibly sender's
>private key"
? Why do you say that? Doing so provides both security and non-repudiation. I
may be misunderstanding your point.
--
For
It would be very surprising if there were any limitation on the scope of a
data space other than what the ALET itself represents.
Limitations are typically with respect to the ALET itself -- DU-AL
(Dispatchable Unit Access List) ALET vs PASN-AL (PASN Access List) ALET vs
a common area data
Thanks gil, perfect. I was trying various combinations of bpxwunix and
enviroment(TZ,xxx) etc.
Dana
On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 14:16:12 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>
>Call your Rexx exec (not the one above, which is woefully ISPF-dependent)
>from .profile using command substitution, then assign and
They told me they would get back to me today
> On Aug 26, 2019, at 8:51 AM, David Crayford wrote:
>
> A Sev 1 PMR? They're quite rare and usually used for important stuff like
> "DB2 is hosed and I can't run production work" :)
>
> On 2019-08-25 10:29 PM, Joseph Reichman wrote:
>> JUST
Nope. The controls are at the JOB level. There is no way to run stepXY on any
other LPAR.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of K
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 1:56 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: CLASS parm for EXEC statement?
Dear all,
I am
I did 0M 1000M all same results
> On Aug 26, 2019, at 8:47 AM, Allan Staller wrote:
>
> I would suggest hard coding (at least) a 150M or greater region. This
> optimizer code is about 120M.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
> Joseph
You are trying to install a down-level PTF. Did your run an accept prior to the
apply check?
The best time to ran an accept, is just before the next apply.
I suspect that UI46897 SUPS UI34556 (haven't checked).
Running an successful accept prior to the apply will cause UI34556 to be
deleted
A Sev 1 PMR? They're quite rare and usually used for important stuff
like "DB2 is hosed and I can't run production work" :)
On 2019-08-25 10:29 PM, Joseph Reichman wrote:
JUST CODED region=1000M same abend opened up SEV 1 PMR with IBM but I told
them they could wait till Monday
thanks
I would suggest hard coding (at least) a 150M or greater region. This optimizer
code is about 120M.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Joseph Reichman
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 8:40 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: S0C4 XL C Compiler
Try the DAF program from the CBTTAPE FILE094.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
willie bunter
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 12:30 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: SMF PUZZLE
Good Day,
I am trying to find the user/job which created a dsn. I
A job is 1 entity, which starts and runs on 1 system.
This is not limited by or related to the jobclass of the job.
Kees.
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of K
> Sent: 26 August, 2019 8:56
> To:
Dear all,
I am running JES2 (z/OS 2.2) in my parallel sysplex environment. Is there any
utility-trick so to submit a job in SYSA (using job CLASS=A) but a stepXY in
this job to be executed in SYSB? I would like to prevent from submitting a
separate job to SYSB (jobclass=B) including stepXY. As
All,
Could it be that the EOF mark on the file is a DADSM function outside of the
control of the program, and that is why there is no SMF record from an
unopened, empty data set?
Ron
RON HAWKINS
Director, Ipsicsopt Pty Ltd (ACN: 627 705 971)
m+61 400029610| t: +1 4085625415 | f: +1
60 matches
Mail list logo
