Dave Gibney wrote:
>Over on CICS-L, I was told that TLS 2.3 requires z/OS 2.4.
>Is this true? Any prospect of a implemnting PTF?
To my knowledge TLS 1.3 support was not backported to z/OS 2.3 System SSL,
and I'm not aware of any plans to do so. Of course you can ask:
https://www.ibm.com/develope
I don't think you're going to be able to "hack in" support for higher TLS
levels. I think you've got a couple near-term options, not necessarily
mutually exclusive:
A. Place one or a couple newer release CICS regions on the "front side" to
handle the network connectivity, and connect them to yo
I'm getting "We can’t connect to the server at www-01.ibm.com." and "We can’t
connect to the server at www-02.ibm.com."; are all of the www.ibm.com web
servers down? Or is IBM blocking verizon?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
---
It is true, TLS 2.3 support is new function in Communication Server z/OS
2.4. My guess is that it won't be retrofitted, but you can always ask
IBM.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 5:45 AM Gibney, Dave wrote:
> Over on CICS-L, I was told that TLS 2.3 requires z/OS 2.4. Is this true?
> Any prospect of a i
You can specify the ciphers in a USS .xml file, the path is set by
USSCONFIG and the file name is in the CICS CIPHERS parameter (which can be
a list of 2 digit cipher codes or the file name). Good luck, CICS 3.1 is 5
years out of support so it won't have PTFs for anything newer in TLS. Most
likel
None of the MVS-SP1 releases required new instructions.
They did exploit new instructions if they were available.
More likely, you are thinking of SE1 or SE2. That was where various
required
assist (Lock, SVC, SETFRR) instructions were added.
Jim Mulder z/OS Diagnosis, Design, Developmen
Over on CICS-L, I was told that TLS 2.3 requires z/OS 2.4. Is this true? Any
prospect of a implemnting PTF?
Dave Gibney
Information Technology Services
Washington State University
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive a
It was Firefox. Strange thing was that I could get around ResourceLink and
other IBM sites, but ShopZ gave me a blank screen - even with starting another
instance of FF. After I shut FF down and restarted it (no reboot required) I
was able to get right in.
Rex
-Original Message-
Fr
I tried to get back in after I responded and the site, local to this company,
failed to pass the SSO credentials to IBM, refreshing hung my browser.
Chrome results got me back in.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive ac
And I placed and received one earlier today as well. Downloaded it and
realized I had the wrong PTF so went back to ShopZ to order the right one, and
got (and still get) blank screen. Tried new browser instance, next step -
reboot. :-(
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussio
I placed an order today no issues other than the normal issues I have with
Shopz - I have to go thru my company SSO process to get to any IBM site, so it
takes longer than normal
my problem, getting into IBM-MAIN saying I'm not authorized, I logout and logon
same email addy and I'm fine - :(
-
Just logged on now, and is fine.
_
Dave Jousma
AVP | Director, Technology Engineering
Fifth Third Bank | 1830 East Paris Ave, SE | MD RSCB2H | Grand Rapids, MI
49546
616.653.8429 | fax:
Hi all,
Can anybody get into ShopZ? I was there a half hour ago now I just get a blank
screen. Literally - a white blank page.
Thanks,
Rex
The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from
disclosure and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is n
It was probably some model of the 470V and MVS/SP 1.3.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Jesse 1 Robinson
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 1:56 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Su
First of all, I know that CICS 3.1 is is very far and away out of service. My
CICS Sysprog retired over a decade ago, I only fake knowledge of CIS when it
becomes a necessity.
SystemSSL in z/OS 2.3 has changed the defaults and available ciphers. This is a
good thing security wise. But, I can't
It's almost Friday. Back in the day when IBM had competitors in the hardware
game, I worked at TRW Credit Data, ancestor of Experian. We had an Amdahl
something-or-other. I was a baby sysprog at the time, so some details are
fuzzy. A new iteration of MVS arrived that was designed *not* to run on
On 2020-09-03 15:31, Tom Conley wrote:
On 9/3/2020 6:11 AM, Robert Prins wrote:
On 2020-09-03 09:10, Rob Scott wrote:
Can I strongly advise that you do not modify the ISFPCU41 panel.
If there is functionality that you require in SDSF, please consider raising
an RFE.
And how long would I ha
I was thinking more along the lines of things that prevented earlier
operating systems from even IPLing on newer boxes. Such as z13 is the
last processor to have ESA/390 mode
It depends how much earlier you are thinking of. A z/OS prior to OS/390
R10 would not work on a machine that is z/Arch-on
Tony,
Check my CMOS Processor Table page at
https://jlelliotton.blogspot.com/p/cmos-processor-table.html. I have the z/OS
and z/VM level sets listed there.
Regards, Jim
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access inst
On 9/3/2020 11:25 AM, David Crayford wrote:
I don’t want to bother with XMIT files. Git has been ported to z/OS and works
great.
David,
Others have requested GIT, so stay tuned.
Regards,
Tom Conley
--
For IBM-MAIN subscrib
On 9/3/2020 6:11 AM, Robert Prins wrote:
On 2020-09-03 09:10, Rob Scott wrote:
Can I strongly advise that you do not modify the ISFPCU41 panel.
If there is functionality that you require in SDSF, please consider
raising
an RFE.
And how long would I have to hold my breath?
Anyway, it's not
I don’t want to bother with XMIT files. Git has been ported to z/OS and works
great.
> On 3 Sep 2020, at 10:30 pm, Robert Prins wrote:
>
> On 2020-09-03 10:56, David Crayford wrote:
>>> On 2020-09-03 12:16 AM, Tom Conley wrote:
>>
>> ISPF HILITE is just that highlight. It do\es not d
On 2020-09-03 10:31, David Crayford wrote:
Rob is the SDSF architect so you may want to heed his advice!
If I would heed advice, I wouldn't still be hitchhiking, as a 60-year old, even
now, in the midst of a pandemic. So, again I will ignore this suggestion. ;)
It's my understanding that Dou
On 2020-09-03 10:56, David Crayford wrote:
On 2020-09-03 12:16 AM, Tom Conley wrote:
ISPF HILITE is just that highlight. It do\es not do any parsing of the
language. I think EDOEND predated HILITE, and it also has an option to just
show all "myproc: proc;" ... 'end myproc;' statements
You c
Yup.
In the TLS protocol that is referred to as a "server certificate." It tells the
client about the authenticity of the server. It "certifies" the server (for the
client).
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of
On 2020-09-03 10:31, David Crayford wrote:
> Rob is the SDSF architect so you may want to heed his advice!
If I would heed advice, I wouldn't still be hitchhiking, as a 60-year old, even
now, in the midst of a pandemic. So, again I will ignore this suggestion. ;)
> It's my understanding that D
On 2020-09-03 10:31, David Crayford wrote:
Rob is the SDSF architect so you may want to heed his advice!
If I would heed advice, I wouldn't still be hitchhiking, as a 60-year old, even
now, in the midst of a pandemic. So, again I will ignore this suggestion. ;)
It's my understanding that Dou
On 2020-09-03 12:16 AM, Tom Conley wrote:
ISPF HILITE is just that highlight. It do\es not do any parsing of
the language. I think EDOEND predated HILITE, and it also has an
option to just show all "myproc: proc;" ... 'end myproc;' statements
You can customize ISPF highlight code. Check out
Rob is the SDSF architect so you may want to heed his advice!
It's my understanding that Doug's ISFPCU41 panel and REXX panel exit was
for highlighting syslog. Most of that stuff is in native SDSF now so you
don't need customization.
On 2020-09-03 9:10 PM, Robert Prins wrote:
On 2020-09-03 0
Well, I guess you mean, z990 was the first machine working in LPAR mode
only. Before that a CPC could run in BASIC mode, which meant no LPARs,
just single operating system, like regular PC.
Did I understand it correctly?
Of course before that LPAR mode was really common and fully supported by
On 2020-09-03 09:10, Rob Scott wrote:
Can I strongly advise that you do not modify the ISFPCU41 panel.
I hope you don't mind me ignoring that advice. ;)
But don't worry, the changed panel is in my own panel library, which is
allocated in front of the IBM supplied ones, with the original one.
Can I strongly advise that you do not modify the ISFPCU41 panel.
There could be changes to the SDSF ISPF interface that would make any
modifications you make to this panel very difficult (or impossible) to
implement into the next release of SDSF.
If there is functionality that you require in SD
It's potentially confusing, and I would certainly flag it at a code review.
Even if PUT were not a keyword it would be a poor choice of name. Better form
would be a name that suggests not only that you did a PUT but to which file.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
_
33 matches
Mail list logo
