[This message was posted by John Peng of IIROC <[email protected]> to the "Transport Independence Framework" discussion forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/49. You can reply to it on-line at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/9f63f04a - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
I am wondering what would you expect a FIX engine to react when an "uninvited" SequenceReset/GapFill comes in -- with no actual sequence gap and no ResendRequest? To be more specific: A: Logon(1) B: Logon(1) A: Heartbeat(2) B: Heartbeat(2) A: Heartbeat(3) B: Heartbeat(3) A: ResetRequest/GapFill(1->2) What would B do at this time? I tend to assume that the ResetRequest/GapFill(1->2) from A is harmless though not expected, and B should be able to handle it (i.e. ignore it). However, some FIX engine would disconnect the session complaining tthat "attempting to decrease sequence number from 4 to 2". What's your opinion? Thanks. [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.
