I didn't bring up the other points because the responses were at least defensible.
-----Original Message-----
From: Vernon Hamberg [mailto:vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 2:26 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Is Management Central dead? Was: disabling QSECOFR profile
To Justin again - heh - the response that said it was unique to your environment was concerned with your request (out of 5) to get Kerberos support in Nav for i - the other had to do with performance of Nav for i compared to the rich client.
We probably took IBM's lead on how that was worded, as to environment.
Nonetheless, we'll see how IBM responds to your RFE - and I'm glad you submitted that.
The performance thing still might be better submitted as a PMR, since it probably isn't best seen as a "request for enhancement" - performance improvement is not typically an enhancement, right? I will say that as the HTTP group PTFs are coming out, that performance is continually improving, according to reports from several, including some who are on these lists.
Of the 5 items in your requirement, these 2 were thought better to be PMRs, one was already delivered, and 2 were split into separate requirements.
If anyone is interested, here is a link to the requirement -
http://requirements.common.org/powerbase/view/ideasIBM.htm?db=ideasIBM&Where=ID%20=%203458
Regards
Vern
midrange.com
