[This message was posted by Mikael Brannstrom of Nordic Growth Market <mikael.brannst...@ngm.se> 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/428a8478 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
Hi Dennis, Could you please clarify your previous statement? > This would potentially create enormous redevelopment costs for FIX compliant > systems. Their implementations are predicated upon this sort of thing not > being possible. Logon with ResetSeqNumFlag=Y is the same as 1. Logon with MsgSeqNum=MAX_INTEGER, NextExpectedMsgSeqNum=1, followed by 2. SeqReset-Reset, NewSeqNo=1 ... but without starting the message retransmission as a consequence of step 1. Steps 1 and 2 are allowed today. In what way would merging these two steps into one step "create enormous redevelopment costs for FIX compliant systems"? Regards Mikael Brännström [You can unsubscribe from this discussion group by sending a message to mailto:unsubscribe+100932...@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-proto...@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.
