AW: Re: STC - APF - confusion

2017-09-25 Thread Peter Hunkeler
>Alternatively, I suppose you could run without APF-authorization if you have >your initial program listed in the PPT as requiring a system key, as running >in a system key will also allow you to switch to supervisor state. On the >whole, though, running APF-authorized is probably simpler and

Re: STC - APF - confusion

2017-09-22 Thread scott Ford
Exactly Walt. As always, Thank you, Scott On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:51 AM Walt Farrell wrote: > On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 22:35:23 +, scott Ford wrote: > >We are using all functions, since we function as what is now being called > a > >central site

Re: STC - APF - confusion

2017-09-19 Thread Walt Farrell
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 22:35:23 +, scott Ford wrote: >We are using all functions, since we function as what is now being called a >central site administrator. If you are indeed using _all_ the functions of r_admin (which I suppose is possible, though it seems unlikely to

Re: STC - APF - confusion

2017-09-17 Thread scott Ford
Walt, We are using all functions, since we function as what is now being called a central site administrator. My confusion is not the working it is understanding it. I have ADHD so sometimes I must ask multiple times to grasp a concept. Peter a sorry but sometimes I must ask more than once..

Re: STC - APF - confusion

2017-09-17 Thread Walt Farrell
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 15:04:49 +, scott Ford wrote: >Thank you for your reply, I just wanted to make sure I did the pgm call >correctly before I stuck my neck out. You haven't described the r_admin functions you're using. At least as of the z/OS V1.13 documentation no

AW: Re: STC - APF - confusion

2017-09-17 Thread Peter Hunkeler
>There are z/OS Unix analogs of AC(1).. Didn't you mean to say "there are z/OS Unix analogs of APF authorized libraries"? AC(1) is the load module attribute part of the game. And this is no different. It's the APF extended attribute of a load module file which is the analog of the APF

Re: STC - APF - confusion

2017-09-17 Thread Tony Harminc
On 16 September 2017 at 15:43, Blaicher, Christopher Y. wrote: > Remember, authorization occurs at the address space level. And once you do > something to lose authorization, it is gone for good. At the job-step task level, surely. Tony H.

Re: STC - APF - confusion

2017-09-17 Thread scott Ford
Peter, Thank you for your reply, I just wanted to make sure I did the pgm call correctly before I stuck my neck out. Respectfully, Scott On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 9:17 AM Peter Relson wrote: > The rule is simple. I do not understand why this topic continues to come > up. It

Re: STC - APF - confusion

2017-09-17 Thread Peter Relson
The rule is simple. I do not understand why this topic continues to come up. It has been discussed many times. AC(1) is relevant for the EXEC PGM= Attach only. Otherwise it is ignored. And it applies when the concatenation is APF-authorized only. A concatenation is APF-authorized when all of

Re: STC - APF - confusion

2017-09-16 Thread Blaicher, Christopher Y.
Trillium Software is now a part of Syncsort. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of scott Ford Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2017 2:33 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: STC - APF - confusion All, I have a COBOL written STC

STC - APF - confusion

2017-09-16 Thread scott Ford
All, I have a COBOL written STC that is single thread socket server. It receives messages that are RACF commands and then calls a module which calls r_ admin. My question is this, when I initially started working with this code , it was AC (1) , I didn't think anything about it. But we are in the