modems under delay not dropping DTR on 3003

[John F Haugh II]

In article <7815 at spdcc.SPDCC.COM> rbraun at spdcc.COM (Rich Braun) writes:
>As I understand it, "delay" is not to be used for dialups.  It causes
>the device driver to ignore Carrier Detect entirely, which means a session
>can remain logged in indefinitely as you've reported (whether dial-in or
>dial-out, as in your case).  The IBM doc doesn't say this explicitly
>enough, IMHO.  The only suitable settings for dialups are "share" and
>"enable", and "share" doesn't work.

A setting of "delay" is supposed to work for dialups, as is "share".
The only difference between "share" and "delay", in theory, is that
"delay" causes TSM to wait for a single character to be read prior
to setting the lock in /etc/locks and "share" sets the lock the
moment that DCD comes up.

Ignoring DCD is caused, most likely, by an incorrect setting of
HUPCL and CLOCAL in the SMIT panel for terminal settings.  Even on
this system, if you turn on CLOCAL and turn off HUPCL, hanging up the
phone leaves the session connected.  This is how it is supposed to
work.  If you go into SMIT and "clocal" is turned off and "hupcl" is
turned on and "delay" still doesn't log off the user, open an APAR.

>I wish to file a formal, written bug report on this topic, now that IBM
>has closed out the problem number I'd previously filed via phone/e-mail.
>How do I go about this?

Call the Defect Support number and tell them that the PMR/APAR that you
had opened earlier wasn't fixed correctly.  One other point - the IBMer
that closed your problem should be chewed out for doing so.  APARs should
only be closed after the testcase that is provided (by you or worked up
by them) has successfully passed.  I'm sure that Brad is laying around
here somewheres waiting to explain what happened with this particular
problem.
-- 
John F. Haugh II        | Distribution to  | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 255-8251 | GEnie PROHIBITED :-) |  Domain: jfh at rpp386.cactus.org
"If liberals interpreted the 2nd Amendment the same way they interpret the
 rest of the Constitution, gun ownership would be mandatory."