[This message was posted by Elton Melo of Santander - Altec Brasil <[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/ab9f980f - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
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:[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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
