"Programs" do not get to write or directly control the contents of SMF 30 records. IRXJCL would have no way to "record the member" (in the SMF 30).
IBM would of course be free to add the PARM= information to the SMF 30 record, or to create a new record type for PARM= data, or a new record type for IRXJCL options and results. I have no idea of the efficacy of an RFE, but snowflakes and Avernus come to mind. I do not disagree with the assertion that PARM= data would be useful. As a guy who has spent the past 8 years trying to populate organizational security threat repositories from the contents of SMF records I can tell you that there is a lot of additional data that would be useful in SMF records. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 9:29 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IKJEFT1B program name SMF On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 09:08:07 -0800, Charles Mills wrote: >To the best of my (possibly faulty, of course) recollection SMF does not >record PARM= anywhere under any circumstances -- other than if it somehow gets >used in a way that ends up in SMF, e.g. a program that takes PARM=ddname and >then opens that DD name. (You would get an SMF 14, 15, 42 or 6x for that OPEN >or CLOSE, or an SMF 80 or 230 if the OPEN failed for security reasons.) > This feels like cause fo RFE that IRXJCL itself should record in SMF the member called. Most readers would find the "%SOMETHING" more informative than "IRXJCL". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
