[This message was posted by Mahesh Kumaraguru of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to the "General Q/A" discussion forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/22. You can reply to it on-line at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/cf529cb8 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
Hi Matt / Hanno, [Quote from Matt's message] More often than not these will be the same set of parties [End Quote] [Quote from Hanno's message] Avoiding duplicate party information by dropping TargetParties is interesting but should only apply when the sender of the request wants to cancel his own orders. [End Quote] I was under the assumption that they will always be the same. From a security (as in safety as opposed to Security as in Stock) point of view, should it not be that only I can Cancel my Orders? i.e. I should NOT be permitted to Cancel another party's orders and conversely no other party can touch my orders on the market. Regards, K. Mahesh > Oops, you are right, is already covered for all mass action messages > including OrderMassCancelRequest. I should not have underestimated > Rikard and the quality of his proposals! > > Avoiding duplicate party information by dropping TargetParties is > interesting but should only apply when the sender of the request wants > to cancel his own orders. This should be a usage guideline. It should > not apply if the sender does not need to identify himself through the > regular Parties block (you called it RootParties). In this case, only > TargetParties should be used for MassCancelRequestType = "Cancel > orders for specified party" and the regular Parties block should not > be present. > > Do you see more cases where TargetParties could be dropped? > > > Hanno - > > > > That makes sense but it would be nice to have the ability to drop the > > TargetParties block if it is the same as RootParties when > > MassCancelRequestType is "Cancel orders for specified party". More > > often than not these will be the same set of parties. > > > > Yes, I think OrderMassCancelRequest and OrderMassActionRequest should > > be kept in sync. Looks like the proposal was intending to > > dop://fixprotocol.org/documents/4066/FIX%20Protocol%20Gap%20Analysis%20- > > %20Mass%20Action%20Filters%20v%200.12.doc > > > > Matt > > > > > Matt, > > > > > > my understanding was that the Parties block was added to define who > > > is sending the request, not to specify the target (cancel orders of > > > parties x,y,z). This is something we are in the process of adding to > > > the OrderMassActionRequest (new block TargetParties). This should > > > solve Jim's problem. The OrderMassActionRequest is the more generic > > > message that can be used to suspend, resume or also cancel orders. > > > Do we need to add it to OrderMassCancelRequest as well to keep both > > > in sync? > > > > > > Regards, Hanno. > > > > > > > Jim - > > > > > > > > This looks like an oversight to me. We added the > > > > Parties/RootParties block to the main level of a number of > > > > messages as part of FIX 5.0 and OrderMassCancelRequest was one of > > > > them. I think it would be appropriate to add a value for "Cancel > > > > orders for a party". > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > [You can unsubscribe from this discussion group by sending a message to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Financial Information eXchange" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/FIX-Protocol?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
