[This message was posted by Clive Browning of Rapid Addition Ltd <[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/fa01edf1 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
I don't think you should be allowed to decrease the sequence number. The problem is that any subsequent resend-request would not know which message to resend as the sequence numbers had been re-used and multiple messages then have the same sequence number. Clive > 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) > C: Heartbeat(2) > D: Heartbeat(2) > E: Heartbeat(3) > F: Heartbeat(3) > G: 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.
