[This message was posted by Roseate L. Wagner of Merrill Lynch <roseate...@ml.com> 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/c400c6e4 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
I would also like to know if there's any conclusion on the tag150 value for bust scenarios from the GTC discussion. I'd hope if we can keep tag150 in sync with the execution type that is busted. ie. if you bust a partial fill, tag150 shall be 1; if you bust a full fill, tag150 shall be 2. And also leave tag39 to indicate the order status after the transaction and tag20 to indicate the action of the transaction. i.e tag20=1 for cancel/bust. In example of a full bust on an order, i was wonder whether it makes sense to set tag39=0, tag150=2, tag20=1? tag39 - indicates the order status after this transaction will be returned to new. tag20 - indicates the transaction type of this action is to cancel. tag150 - indicates the execution type of the message that is canceled - a filled execution. Please kindly advise. > Hello, > > Please can someone let me know where do I can find the details of the > proposal referred to below. > > > > Hi Elton, > > > > A sub-group of the GTC is looking at this issue. I am working with > > Greg Wood of Credit Suisse and Jim Whitehead of Fidessa LatentZero on > > a proposal. This will be ready for review on 11th June. > > > > Regards, > > > > John > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > The GTC is happy to host a more formal discussion on this topic. > > > > If there is ambiguity in either the order state change matrices or > > > > the rules as stated in the spec then it should be clarified. This > > > > Thursday's monthly GTC meeting would be a good opportunity. > > > > Otherwise, we could find another time that suits all parties. > > > > > > Please, do you have any news of GTC on this topic? > > > > > > > > > > Looking at both the 4.2 and 5.0 SP1 specs leads me to the > > > > conclusion that the intent is for ExecType to be set to a value > > > > indicating that the trade has been canceled (4 or H, depending on > > > > version) and that OrderStatus would be set to value determined by > > > > the order status priority matrix. In some cases this may simply be > > > > "New" if there is no preceding status that overrides this. > > > > Unfortunately there is not a bust example that clearly conveys > > > > this and we may want to consider providing such. > > > > > > Will FPL add this "full bust" in the "D" appendix of FIX 4.2 specs? > > > > > > At least, may I assume that ExecType=Cancel (150=4) when busting an > > > execution? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Elton [You can unsubscribe from this discussion group by sending a message to mailto:unsubscribe+10093...@fixprotocol.org] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Financial Information eXchange" group. To post to this group, send email to fix-protocol@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to fix-protocol+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fix-protocol?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
