Eric Rosenfeld of the TSO/E team points to the following variables that
REXX provides:
SYSOSSEQ returns data based on the value in ECVTPSEQ
SYSMVS returns CVTPRODN
SYSOPSYS returns data based on ECVTPVER||ECVTREL||ECVTPMOD (and probably
ECVTPNAM and CVTPRODI since I see "z/OS" and the FMID of
cter than your reputation. Character is what you
are, reputation merely what others think you are." - - - John Wooden
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Peter Relson
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2021 8:03 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: z/OS SYSVAR lo
RACFLEV = RACFVER || '.' || RACFREL || '.' || RACFMOD
I'm afraid that that is not particularly helpful. That is just
reformatting the value already provided by
As RCVTVRMN documents, that value does not represent the level of RACF as
of z/OS 2.2 -- the level of RACF is the level
st On Behalf Of
Peter Relson
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2021 8:11 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: z/OS SYSVAR looks weird
It would seem to me that if IBM is to move in the direction of new symbols
it should move the emphasis to "feature Booleans" rath
It would seem to me that if IBM is to move in the direction of new symbols
it should move the emphasis to "feature Booleans" rather than a new level
variable.
I agree with that -- the question usually worth asking is "is this feature
available to me now" (a la the z/OS feature bits in the CVT
ailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Seymour J Metz
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2021 7:21 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: z/OS SYSVAR looks weird
How about a new symbol that has the desired comparison properties?
--
Fo
mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>
>
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
> Peter Relson [rel...@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2021 9:52 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: z/OS SYSVAR looks weird
>
> Charles' interpr
25, 2021 9:52 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: z/OS SYSVAR looks weird
Charles' interpretation is exactly the use case we are concerned with. The
doc is not ASCII-oriented. It is EBCDIC-oriented. That use case,
analogously, is why we continue to update CVTPRODN with a value
Charles' interpretation is exactly the use case we are concerned with. The
doc is not ASCII-oriented. It is EBCDIC-oriented. That use case,
analogously, is why we continue to update CVTPRODN with a value that is
not necessarily "obvious" but has the necessary characteristic of
increasing (we
aul Gilmartin
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 12:38 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: z/OS SYSVAR looks weird
On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 14:35:46 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>Did you read the doc? They are concerned because 77A0 will character compare
>low to 7790 and mess up peopl
The obvious problem here is that the manuals specify that SYSLRACF
returns the RACF level [as a character string], but give zero guidance
about valid ways to interpret or use the value. If this will always be
the suffix of an FMID AND the rules for RACF FMID assignment guarantee
that comparing as
How about an option to set either value (PTFs to swap values) and make
it a hold option for the user to test first?
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 2:38 PM Paul Gilmartin
<000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 14:35:46 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>
> >Did you
On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 14:35:46 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>Did you read the doc? They are concerned because 77A0 will character compare
>low to 7790 and mess up peoples' logic. Seems to me if you do character
>compares on hex data you get what you deserve, but I don't make up the rules.
>
Errr
On 6/21/2021 6:18 PM, Pommier, Rex wrote:
Tom,
I agree with you that I think it was a rather bone-headed move on their part -
although maybe they have some other reason that they haven't divulged - but I
doubt they'll fix it since they documented that this is the way it is.
Nonetheless,
with the TSO one,
once I get my head above water.
Rex
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom
Conley
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 4:47 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [External] Re: z/OS SYSVAR looks weird
On 6/21/2021 5:35 PM, Charles Mills
Lowest common denominator.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Tom Conley
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 2:47 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: z/OS SYSVAR looks weird
On 6/21/2021 5:35 PM, Charles Mills
On 6/21/2021 5:35 PM, Charles Mills wrote:
Did you read the doc? They are concerned because 77A0 will character compare
low to 7790 and mess up peoples' logic. Seems to me if you do character
compares on hex data you get what you deserve, but I don't make up the rules.
Charles
Charles,
So
List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Tom Conley
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 11:11 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: z/OS SYSVAR looks weird
On 6/21/2021 12:50 PM, Pommier, Rex wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Running z/OS 2.4 with RACF 2.4 - FMID HRF77C0. When I do
On 6/21/2021 12:50 PM, Pommier, Rex wrote:
Hey all,
Running z/OS 2.4 with RACF 2.4 - FMID HRF77C0. When I do a SYSVAR of SYSLRACF,
I get a result of RACF version is 7791. Is this right or is the SYSVAR giving
me outdated information? It just doesn't look correct. It's also giving me a
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [External] Re: z/OS SYSVAR looks weird
As of V2R2 (HRF77A0), SYSLRACF is frozen at 7791.
https://community.ibm.com/community/user/ibmz-and-linuxone/blogs/anthony-giorgio2/2020/04/02/sharing-some-changes-in-zos-v2r2-before-you-find-it-from-professor-kimura
As of V2R2 (HRF77A0), SYSLRACF is frozen at 7791.
https://community.ibm.com/community/user/ibmz-and-linuxone/blogs/anthony-giorgio2/2020/04/02/sharing-some-changes-in-zos-v2r2-before-you-find-it-from-professor-kimura
Eric Rossman, CISSP®
ICSF Cryptographic Security Development
z/OS Enabling
Hey all,
Running z/OS 2.4 with RACF 2.4 - FMID HRF77C0. When I do a SYSVAR of SYSLRACF,
I get a result of RACF version is 7791. Is this right or is the SYSVAR giving
me outdated information? It just doesn't look correct. It's also giving me a
SYSTSOE version of 4040 which looks
22 matches
Mail list logo
