This portal is to open public enhancement requests against IBM Z Software products. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com).
We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:
Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,
Post an idea.
Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.
Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.
Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal (https://www.ibm.com/ideas) - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.
IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com) - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM.
ideasibm@us.ibm.com - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.
This is definitely an important logical step to be taken in protecting the disk configuration changes, but I also agree it needs to be configurable/not mandatory. A medium priority in my opinion.
It's a logical step, but it's limited in usability unless you also lock down the TSO CDEL* commands. That is obviously something that can be done, but there are many genuine use cases for the TSO commands that might make that undesirable.
We believe that we should have something like a policy (or RACF definitions) where we could configure if some function needs to enforce dual control or not.
Good idea, but needs to be configurable. Don't want this to be obligatory in test environments. Medium priority.
Sounds like the next logical step.
It's very good idea, we don't use Dual control or GM/LCP in our setup, but more control is always good.
Though not directly applicable to our specific configuration, I concur with the positive feedback; it appears to be a very promising idea that warrants consideration.
Does not apply to Worldpay
This makes sense in such an environment
High priority - there is possibility to cause the backup for LCP invalid so extra protection is needed to address the vulnerability.
Makes sense. This is a vulnerability that is worth closing.
Not something we'll need with the next two years, but a billiant idea nontheless.
LBG: This is a fantastic proposal, and it's something we'd like implementing within the next two years.
Security is a big focus for American Express and we need to be able have dual control for our configurations to prevent people from removing volumes from replication adding maliciously.