Skip to Main Content
Integration


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).


Shape the future of IBM!

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:

Search existing ideas

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 your ideas
  1. Post an idea.

  2. Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.

  3. Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.


Specific links you will want to bookmark for future use

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.


Status Not under consideration
Created by Guest
Created on Oct 4, 2023

MQ Should Automatically Rebuild XCF Entries!

This idea is a re-hashing of [MESNS-I-205] which was previously declined.

It is unreasonable that MQ for z/OS does not automatically handle rebuilding XCF entries as part of QSG recovery.

If for any reason, the entries go missing (like during alternate site recovery), we have to run the CSQ5PQSG utility prior to MQ initialization to re-add the entries.

[MESNS-I-205] gave a good overview and we'd very much like to see this idea revisited.

Idea priority High
  • Admin
    Matthew Leming
    Reply
    |
    Feb 27, 2024

    We recognize that this is a valid requirement, and in fact is a good idea. However it doesn't fit with our delivery plans for the next year or so.
    As a result we are declining this idea. While declined the idea can still be voted, and commented, upon. We will retain this idea on our internal backlog for future consideration.