Perhaps the "auditors", or those who actually made their lists, need to be trained. Of course, who wants to learn how to audit an obsolescent system like z/OS? You go where the money is. SVCs have been around since the beginning and so are part of the lore. PC/PT are relatively new and more complicated.
-- John McKown Maranatha! <>< On Apr 24, 2011 8:14 PM, "john gilmore" <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with Edward Jaffe---He put the matter more politely---that botching an SVC does not usually have the disastrous systemic consequences that botching a PC-PR construct can have. > > Thecthrust of my comments was that the preoccupation of auditors with SVCs, all but to the exclusion of concern with PC-PR constructs, is both unfortunate and shortsighted. > > In the cryptography community it is a commonplace that one must never assume that the opposition is not smart enough to make effective of some piece of cutting-edge technology. It is better, i.e., safer, to assume that they are as smart as you are. > > John Gilmore Ashland, MA 01721-1817 USA > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO > Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
