On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 07:30:42AM -0700, Andrew Raibeck wrote:
> The APAR you refer to is IC35953. The reason it was closed SUG is due to
> the extent of the code changes required to fix it; it is not as trivial as
> it sounds.
It would have been nice if this information was included in the docu
> This resulted in that drive to be skipped without *any*
> message, warning or error. If the drive would have been
> in a DOMAIN statement, an error would have been issued.
> There is an APAR for this behaviour, but that is closed
> as a suggestion because IBM finds it too much trouble to
> fix.
