[This message was posted by John Prewett of Lava Trading <[email protected]> to the "4.2 Changes" discussion forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/5. You can reply to it on-line at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/b6430b68 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
Sorry Senthil, I do not believe your statement below is correct. I believe the SequenceReset/GapFill message in the original example was correct with NewSeqNo=64, although I do agree this is a slightly confusing issue. Imagine that the sequence of messages to be retransmitted in the original example contained a NewOrderSingle in the middle (MsgSeqNum=8) of a bunch of administrative messages. Then the initiator's response to the ResendRequest would have to have been three messages: 35=4, 34=4, 43=Y, 36=8, 123=Y 35=D, 34=8, 43=Y 35=4, 34=9, 43=Y, 36=64, 123=Y You will notice the first gap fill contains NewSeqNo must contain a number that is 1 higher than the gap it actually fills, otherwise the resent messages themselves would be out of sequence. It is my opinion that NewSeqNo contains a number that is 1 higher than the gap it fills in ALL SequenceReset/GapFill messages. It doesn't magically substitute the next actually expected message when doing a one-message response to a ResendRequest where someone is using the "fill-the-gap" method, that would be inconsistent. Thanks JohnP > reset/GapFill response is incorrect, tag 36 should convey the next seq > num which should be 65. > > Initiator: 35=4, 34=4, 43=Y, 36=64, 123=Y > > Senthil > > > Bonjour Gregory, > > > > The initiator is at fault with the Heartbeat message. It sent a > > Heartbeat with MsgSeqNum=64 when it had previously used that sequence > > number in its Logon message. The acceptor was entirely correct to get > > angry and logout. It received a low sequence number (64) from the > > initiator when it should have been 65. The initiator sent out a Sequence- > > reset/GapFill PossDup=Y message which correctly responded to the > > ResendRequest, after that it should have resumed its usage of sequence > > numbers from where it left off, which should have been 65, not 64. > > > > JohnP [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
