[This message was posted by Russell Curry of Assimilate Technology, Inc. <r...@assimilate.com> 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/9138ddf5 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
> I would like to propose two minor additions in terms of valid values > that should provide useful: > > 1) Additional ThrottleAction "4=Warning" to allow notification of the > user before actual throttling takes place > > 2) Additional ThrottleType "2=Risk Limit" to allow throttling when > exceeding risk limits > > Regards, Hanno. Hi All, Hanno's suggestion, regarding congestion mitigation alerting/controls, brings another question to mind - something which I've been wondering a little about as I read the specification: Seeing as this is really just a QoS implementation of sorts, with congestion relief (aka throttling) being just one aspect of QoS, is there an actual QoS standard that this proposal is modeled on? Considering how much work has been done on QoS and congestion relief/mitigation on existing network protocols, I was wondering if this proposal is based on one of those, or if it's entirely ad-hoc? If there are other QoS strategies and implementations that were drawn on in the development of this proposal, it might be nice to include references / citations to them in the proposal itself so that people can see where this proposal aligns with, or departs from, the existing bodies of work done in the QoS space. [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.
