Program control and system symbols

This item is a valid requirement but unlikely to be given high enough priority to be placed into the product plan. If this requirement is high value, please re-open it, or open a new requirement.

Thank you for your response. We agree to this requirement as an uncommitted candidate.

Hello

thank you for the consideration with the use of RACFVARS.

But the disadvantage of RACFVARS for your case would be:
"The resource names can be up to 39 characters long and cannot contain any generic characters."
(Source: https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.1.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.icha700/defrvar.htm)

In that case we would have to add for every maintenance level a new member in the member class of RACFVARS. That generates the similar administration effort like add/del a dataset name in PROGRAM class. (An advantage of RACFVARS would be that multiple qualifiers can be used in parallel. But this is not required in our case). The benefit of this RFE would be that we could make use of system symbols and no additional RACF admin efford is required. The system administrator can decide which is the current system symbols (incl. fallback) and the correct dataset qualifier
is automatically program controlled.
PS: Our colleagues use an internal maintenance level pattern that identifies the appropriate maintenance level. This is reflected then in system symbols qualifier.

Thank you very much.
Daniel

Thank you for submitting this request. It is under consideration. We wonder if you would prefer to use RACFVARS, though currently not supported in member lists like for PROGRAM.
See https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.1.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.icha700/icha700_Using_a_RACF_variable_as_a_qualifier.htm
The advantage of RACFVARS would be that multiple values could be substituted for the variable.