Date:         Sat, 21 Feb 1998 14:48:43 -0500
Reply-To:     CICS List <CICS-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
Sender:       CICS List <CICS-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
From:         Randy Evans <revans@VIASERV.COM>
Subject:      Re: Signon without terminal with CICS/ESA v4.1

Hi Christopher:
 
>I think the problem with extending EXEC CICS SIGNON is, what would you be
signing on "to"? When you sign on you have to sign on "to" something.<
 
I'd like to be able to get the user signed on "to" a SOCKET.  Seems reasonable
to me that since a socket now represents a way to post work into CICS that
CICS should offer some way to secure that work in a straightforward fashion.
For those folks' networks where sockets are not securable to an adequate
level, they can operate as before.  But as more and more folks add socket
applications to CICS, it would save many of us a lot of extra time and effort
if IBM CICS would address this issue earlier rather than later.
 
I suspect a long and interesting debate could be had on the issue of securing
TCP/IP networks (I sense a loud guffaw in the background).  But, the question
of whether a customer's network may or may not be adequately secured
isn't the issue in my view.  It's whether or not CICS will step up to the plate now
to help those whose networks are secured to the level that meets their business
needs.
 
 
 
Randy Evans, Viaserv, Inc
revans@viaserv.com