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.
For request 1, current zparms for a queue manager can be retrieved via DIS SYSTEM, DIS LOG and DIS ARCHIVE. These contain all zparms other than SERVICE and MULCCAPT. There is no command for CSQ6USGP but the two possible values from that are output at queue manager start up, as is the output of the commands I mentioned previously.
So we have this function, just not in ISPF.
For request 2, the output of the DIS * commands can be placed into the CSQ4ZPRM sample, which should make regeneration of the zparms relatively simple.
I agree that going forwards we could do with improving how we do zparms. The way we would do that would be to move away from an assembler module entirely, see MESNS-I-598. The suggestions provided here aren't consistent with the approach we would take, so I am declining this idea. While declined the idea can still be voted, and commented, upon.
I suggest you consider voting for MESNS-I-598 if you haven't already.