Conference iosg::all-in-1_v30

    
    re .0
    
    You need a new license. The A1FCSRV and A1FCSRV-DISTRIBUTED are the
    field test licenses. We needed to invalidate them in the SSB version.
    
    The new license is called: A1-DIST-SHR.
    
    Not sure what the correct mechanism is for getting you this license,
    can anyone help with this??
    
    --Bob
    

This is what the European (ISPAK) service shows on its first page - no 
A1-DIST-SHR (and I guess you are neither European or U.S. anyway).  I 
don't know when they get updated, either.

 European Software Supply Business  
                                             
     1  2020                               15  A1-SVCS-DECWINDOWS-ES
     2  2020-ALL-IN-1                      16  A1-SVCS-DECWINDOWS-FR
     3  2020-DBC                           17  A1-SVCS-DECWINDOWS-IT
     4  2020-DEC                           18  A1-SVCS-DECWINDOWS-NO
     5  2020-GOLD                          19  A1-SVCS-DECWINDOWS-PT
     6  2020-OPENLINK                      20  A1-SVCS-DECWINDOWS-SE
     7  2020-UR                            21  AAF01-SUBROUTINE-LIBRARY
     8  2020-WPC                           22  ACAS
     9  A1-EARS-ENGLISH                    23  ACAS-RT
    10  A1-EARS-P-ENGLISH                  24  ACMS
    11  A1-MGR-WAN                         25  ACMS-REM
    12  A1-SVCS-DECWINDOWS                 26  ACMS-RT
    13  A1-SVCS-DECWINDOWS-DE              27  ADA
    14  A1-SVCS-DECWINDOWS-DK              28  ADAM

Regards,
Bruce.

    Re .1,
    
    The correct location for obtaining SSB PAK's is of course VTX as Bruce
    pointed out in .2.
    
    It is interesting that the European VTX does not list A1-DIST-SHR and
    I would guess that will make for some exciting calls at the CSC's over
    there where of course our favourite product starts shipping on
    Wednesday (can I say that or is that a SECRET).
    
    Those of us in the U.S who have to wait a little longer will at least
    be pleased to know that the correct licenses are already in U.S VTX.
    
    What does Japanese VTX list.
    
    This looks like we could be having some fun...
    
    Regards,
    
    Andrew.D.Wicks

    
    I'm a little confused, as I understood distributed shared filing wasn't 
    going to be supported initially.  Is the option going to be available, 
    just "unsupported," or is it available and supported?
    
    (Or is it supported internally only?)
    
    Steve

    
    	Well its like this.....
    
    	The OFFICIAL story for customer consumption is still the same,
    	the license is not yet available, and when you buy DSO you may
    	get some code to install too.
    
    	Under the covers its a bit different. In pre-BL122 baselevels
    	DSO was available to FT sites, but it was decided that the way
    	we did it would not be OK for customers so it was all taken out
    	in BL122 and work started to come up with a new strategy and to put
    	it in a PFR (or PFP). By the time BL122 was pulled, and BL123
    	was being worked on, the work for the new DSO was done, so it
    	was decided to put the new code in BL123.
    
    	Since the new code hasn't had full field test exposure, the
    	official position hasn't changed, we may need code to enable
    	DSO if someone finds bugs, but if I were king I would want
    	internal people to test it out for us. So I'd say try it, but
    	I don't know waht the official position is regarding internal
    	supportedness.
    
    Regards,
    Paul

    One thing Paul missed in his excellent description of the potted
    history in the 5 BL122s and the 2 BL123s that we've had since Father
    Christmas brought us our Christmas pressies is the documentation.
    
    So insert this between "paragraph 2 and paragragh 3" !
    
    Before BL122 was pulled from SSB the ALL-IN-1 Management Guide
    was pulled to remove all traces of Distributed Sharing. When it was
    replaced in SSB and the kit pulled the description was not replaced.
    
    Paul (or anyone) without the documentation how might we go about
    testing DSO?
    
    Regards,
    
    Andrew.D.Wicks

The DSO will be going to external field test soon (Alf Pilgrim is producing the
test plan and Bill Colquit is organising the sites).

I'm assuming that the documentation you refer to was about OA$MAIL_ACCESS. This
is no longer needed to use the distributed sharing option so was not re-instated
in any books. You should only need a PAK to test it.

	This may have been entered elsewhere, so please delete it if 
necessary.

	After trying to access a remote drawer and getting the license message 
I asked my local system management about it. I have just got the answer that 
it is a corporate decision not to implement remote drawer access. Is this 
true? If so why, is there a security risk or is it network traffic?

Personally I think it would be a valuable service.

regards,
	Martin

    
    
    Martin,
    
    I certainly haven't heard this one before !!
    
    There is no security risk with implementing distributed shared filing,
    if there was we couldn't have shipped the product !
    
    Obviously it does increase network traffic slightly, but it's no
    different from accessing a notes conference on a remote node (or is
    this now allowed either now ?? :-)
    
    
    Kevin.
    
    

>    There is no security risk with implementing distributed shared filing,
>    if there was we couldn't have shipped the product !
>    
    
    	It depends how you define security risk. True, there are no
    	known security holes, but all those proxy accounts do reduce
    	the overall security of your network. (If someone breaks into
    	an account on one machine, they have access to other machines by
    	virtue of the proxies. You can also impersonate a node on the
    	network if you can physically connect to the network).
    
>    Obviously it does increase network traffic slightly, but it's no
>    different from accessing a notes conference on a remote node (or is
>    this now allowed either now ?? :-)
    
    	Pure speculation on my part, but I would suspect the real reason
    	would be system management overhead administering all those proxies
    	plus the security aspect.
    
    Regards,
    Paul