RE: IBM Y2K Readiness

["Leland, David" <dleland@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Just got a call from IBM and they are working on a PTF to the problem.
Was told that they're a "little behind on Fax/400".  Funny that they
should should list Fax/400 as being Y2K ready in the Year 2000 Product
Readiness DataBase.

Dave

> ----------
> From:         Leland, David[SMTP:dleland@harter.com]
> Sent:         Thursday, July 30, 1998 9:23 AM
> To:   'MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com'
> Subject:      IBM Y2K Readiness
> 
> Just received an interesting response from IBM regarding their Year
> 2000
> readiness.  We are using their Fax/400 product and they claim it to be
> Y2K ready.  I questioned this in an e-mail to them since I had noticed
> a
> log file (QAFFTLOG, which is an important file to us) had a 6 digit
> date
> in it (in the format YYMMDD) and did not have a century code to go
> along
> with it.  Following is the response I received from IBM:
> 
> > Answer 2) The OS/400 and IBM Licensed Programs will, in most cases
> > continue to
> > use a 6 digit date field for "release to release" compatibility. The
> > system has
> > delivered additional function for those cases where customers need
> to
> > see dates
> > in a different format. Some of those functions are *DATE for RPG
> > returns 8
> > digit dates, CVTDAT supports 8 digit dates, ILE COBOL can extract 8
> > digit dates
> > along with a variety of other "tools". You can find out about these
> > functions
> > in a document titled "AS/400 Roadmap to the Year 2000" we have on
> our
> > web page
> > at:
> > 
> >      http://www.softmall.ibm.com/as400/year2000/rldss/
> > 
> > The system previously had used a 6 digit date field with a 2 digit
> > year. In
> > that case, the year field represented 00 to 99. With the Year 2000
> > ready
> > versions of AS/400 products, the year field has been shifted through
> > the use of
> > a "window" so that the years 40 to 99 are associated with a "19" and
> > 00 to 39
> > are associated with a "20". In this manner, the system continues to
> > use a 2
> > digit year but can determine through the use of that window, the
> > non-ambiguous
> > year... You can find out more about the "window" in the AS/400
> Roadmap
> > document.
> > 
> It sounds like they're telling me that they don't intend to change the
> date from a 6 digit date and it's up to me to use the date "window"
> technique to determine the correct year.  Does anyone else besides me
> feel that that's not right?  They could essentially tell me that any
> IBM
> system database file is Y2K ready as long as it has a 2 digit year.
> 
> What do you think?
> Dave
> +---
> | This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
> | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
> | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
> | To unsubscribe from this list send email to
> MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
> | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
> david@midrange.com
> +---
> 
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---