Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-17 Thread Elardus Engelbrecht
Radoslaw Skorupka wrote: >It's IMHO very obvious that offline RACFdb can be copied as regular dataset, >Actually I did mean copy of live RACF db with the tools like IEBGENER or >ADRDSSU (in monoplex) with no ill effects. So my *very limited* experience >says it is not so easy to get

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-17 Thread R.S.
:Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:48:37 +0100 From:"R.S." <r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl> Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5) W dniu 2016-02-15 o 12:48, Robert S. Hansel (RSH) pisze: I wholeheartedly agree with Joel's recommendation for having a backup copy of t

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-17 Thread Robert S. Hansel (RSH)
t;R.S." <r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl> Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5) W dniu 2016-02-15 o 12:48, Robert S. Hansel (RSH) pisze: > I wholeheartedly agree with Joel's recommendation for having a backup copy of > the RACF database readily available for

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-16 Thread R.S.
W dniu 2016-02-15 o 12:48, Robert S. Hansel (RSH) pisze: I wholeheartedly agree with Joel's recommendation for having a backup copy of the RACF database readily available for recovery. I just want to add that it is crucial to use RACF utilities to create the backup and to allocate it with the

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-15 Thread Itschak Mugzach
-715-0595 Mobile > >> jo.skip.robin...@att.net > >> > >> > >> -Original Message- > >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > >>> On Behalf Of Ed Jaffe > >>> Sent: Sunday, Februa

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-15 Thread Joe Aulph
Program Co-Manager >> 323-715-0595 Mobile >> jo.skip.robin...@att.net >> >> >> -Original Message- >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] >>> On Behalf Of Ed Jaffe >>> Sent: Sunday, February 14,

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-15 Thread John Eells
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Ed Jaffe Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 07:37 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5) On 2/13/2016 8:04 PM, Skip Robinson wrote

Re: UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-15 Thread Deepthi S
... On 01-Feb-2016 9:57 PM, "John Eells" wrote: > I hadn't really thought about (or researched) the display capabilities of > RACF. An RFE couldn't hurt if you find them lacking. > > Once one's TSO/E administrative routines have been converted to use the > TSO segment, though,

Re: UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-15 Thread Deepthi S
.. On 01-Feb-2016 9:57 PM, "John Eells" wrote: > I hadn't really thought about (or researched) the display capabilities of > RACF. An RFE couldn't hurt if you find them lacking. > > Once one's TSO/E administrative routines have been converted to use the > TSO segment, though,

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-15 Thread Robert S. Hansel (RSH)
un, 14 Feb 2016 15:53:07 -0600 From:"Joel C. Ewing" <jcew...@acm.org> Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5) But the only way to "fix"an unusable RACF database is to have a fairly recent backup copy of the RACF data base that can

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-14 Thread Walt Farrell
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 16:25:03 -0800, Ed Jaffe wrote: >On 2/14/2016 2:50 PM, Skip Robinson wrote: >> As I said earlier, we still use UADS in production. Only a handful of TSOE >> segments in order to support features that cannot be achieved otherwise, >> such as

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-14 Thread Ed Jaffe
On 2/14/2016 2:50 PM, Skip Robinson wrote: As I said earlier, we still use UADS in production. Only a handful of TSOE segments in order to support features that cannot be achieved otherwise, such as CONSOLE. CONSOLE can't be achieved via RACF? -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-14 Thread Joel C. Ewing
Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] >> On Behalf Of Ed Jaffe >> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 07:37 AM >> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >> Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5) >> >> On 2/13/2016 8:04 PM, Skip Robi

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-14 Thread Skip Robinson
nframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Joel C. Ewing > Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 01:53 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5) > > But the only way to "fix"an unusable

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-14 Thread Skip Robinson
M-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Ed Jaffe > Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 07:37 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5) > > On 2/13/2016 8:04 PM, Skip Robinson wrote: > > This opinion is based on (thankful

Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-14 Thread Ed Jaffe
On 2/13/2016 8:04 PM, Skip Robinson wrote: This opinion is based on (thankfully) limited experience. If you are forced to IPL without a usable RACF data base, you are totally scr*wed. During IPL, operator will be prompted to allow even READ access to *every* data set opened by *every* task

Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-13 Thread Ed Gould
al Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of John Eells Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 08:27 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5) I hadn't really thought about (or researched) the display capabilitie

Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-13 Thread Skip Robinson
ussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of John Eells > Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 08:27 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5) > > I hadn't really thought about (or researched) the display capabilities of RACF

Re: UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-02 Thread Ed Gould
] Re: UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5) Just curious: why one want to know acctnum of given person? More general: what are acctnums used for nowadays? Teaching RACF and z/OS I always recommend to set profile CL (ACCTNUM) * UACC(R) and forget. Only one shop's employes had some rules on acctnum

Re: UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-02 Thread R.S.
ion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Elardus Engelbrecht Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 08:58 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [Bulk] Re: UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5) John Eells wrote: I hadn't really thought about (or researched) the display capabilities of RA

Re: UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-02 Thread Ed Gould
ary 1, 2016 08:58 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [Bulk] Re: UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5) John Eells wrote: I hadn't really thought about (or researched) the display capabilities of RACF. An RFE couldn't hurt if you find them lacking. I don't think there is any problem with the

Re: UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-02 Thread Skip Robinson
age- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of R.S. > Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 02:27 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: [Bulk] Re: UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5) > > Just curious: why one want to know acctnum

Re: UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-01 Thread Skip Robinson
UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Elardus Engelbrecht > Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 08:58 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: [Bulk] Re: UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5) > > John Eells wrote: > > >I hadn't really thought about (or researched) the display capabilities of >

UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-01 Thread John Eells
I hadn't really thought about (or researched) the display capabilities of RACF. An RFE couldn't hurt if you find them lacking. Once one's TSO/E administrative routines have been converted to use the TSO segment, though, I think another good use of UADS is for recovery, including DR. It's the

Re: UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-01 Thread Elardus Engelbrecht
John Eells wrote: >I hadn't really thought about (or researched) the display capabilities of >RACF. An RFE couldn't hurt if you find them lacking. I don't think there is any problem with the display capabilities. Actually, you use a RACF command or utility (RACF panels for example) to ask

Re: UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

2016-02-01 Thread Joel C. Ewing
On 02/01/2016 10:27 AM, John Eells wrote: > I hadn't really thought about (or researched) the display capabilities > of RACF. An RFE couldn't hurt if you find them lacking. > > Once one's TSO/E administrative routines have been converted to use > the TSO segment, though, I think another good use

Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5

2016-01-30 Thread R.S.
Benefits of move to UADS? Should be: Benefits of move *FROM* UADS? -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland --- Tre tej wiadomoci moe zawiera informacje prawnie chronione Banku przeznaczone wycznie do uytku subowego adresata. Odbiorc moe by jedynie jej adresat z wyczeniem

Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5

2016-01-30 Thread Skip Robinson
nframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Ed Gould > Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 11:06 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5 > > On Jan 30, 2016, at 11:11 AM, Skip Robinson wrote: > > > Ah, UADS. A p

Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5

2016-01-30 Thread R.S.
With all respect, I think there was enough time to move RYO tools to RACF segment. Proclib - ITYM logon procedue - I see no problem with that. More important: I see no problem to authorize users to all procedures, since it is method of customization, not resource access control Not to mention I

Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5

2016-01-30 Thread Skip Robinson
lf Of R.S. > Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 02:49 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5 > > W dniu 2016-01-29 o 19:17, Skip Robinson pisze: > > We ran an inherited ISAM application in the 80s, a true dog. Then we > > learned of a VSAM conve

Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5

2016-01-30 Thread Ed Gould
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.