This is an IBM Automation portal for Integration 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.
See this idea on ideas.ibm.com
Whats missing??
With existing MQ product version 7 to 9.3 - when comes to Cluster design there is no control over shared applications using the same qmgr(shared qmgr) and sending msgs to downstream applications.
With the MQ Cluster by design we see some limitations as below :
1) All the MCA USER ID used in SVRCONN CHANNEL requires access to put permission to SYSTEM.CLUSTER.XMITQ when sending msgs to Downstream banckend qmgr
2) above step is minimum requirement – with this - this is also enabling the permissions to rest of the applications which are not supposed to have access to other than their own specific queues. For example : App1 should have access to only App1 REQ queue . not to 2/3/4, in this situation it’s enabling the access.
Why it is useful ??
if the MQ allows Permission to be enabled on the source qmgr or some validation on the destination qmgr - this will isolate the applications and related txns separately when sharing the qmgrs, In this way multiple applications can share the single qmgr and perform the MQ txns securely without impacting each other.
Currently MQ supports this functionality only for the local queues on the qmgr. we need this to be applied on CLUSTER QUEUES as well .
Who would it benefit from it ??
This functionality majorly benefits every organisation who wants or planning to multiple applications sharing the same qmgr and sending msgs to cluster queues via cluster channels with more secured way , not exposing the queues to other parties though they are part of same cluster.
How Should it Work??
As part of the MQ Cluster design , as a product it should allow Enable additional OAM security for the cluster queues defined in Target qmgr. This will enable lots of additional security and more safety when using shared qmgrs.
Please let me know if more details required. Happy to have a call.
Thanks,
CHinna
Idea priority | Medium |
By clicking the "Post Comment" or "Submit Idea" button, you are agreeing to the IBM Ideas Portal Terms of Use.
Do not place IBM confidential, company confidential, or personal information into any field.
From developer:
The second link provided in previous comments does seem to describe what you have asked for. If it does not, then much more detail would be needed as to why it doesn't.
Hi Mark,
As per the diagrams still it doesn't give complete solution to the requirement has been raised as part of the initial request.
Solution provided below doesn't full fill all the requirements as expected.
Thanks,
Chinna
Previous comments have shown how we believe this is already available.
Response from the developer responsible for this area: "Are you aware of the queue manager setting ClusterQueueAccessControl=RQMName (configured in qm.ini) which allows authorities on cluster objects to be defined using the actual (remote) object or queue manager name rather than against the SCTQ? Although this does not avoid the requirement for the cluster channel agent (MCAUSER) to have access to the target queues at the recipient queue manager, it does mean that - assuming the administrator of the source queue manager is trusted - applications do not need to be granted access to each other's resources. If I am reading the proposal correctly, I think this already meets your key requirements. If not could you explain how this is insufficient?"