[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/2c349f1d - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
Thanks for replying Clive. No doubt that it's never acceptable to decrease sequence number. However, since Engine B knows there is no incoming sequence gap, wouldn't it have the capability to determine that the GapFill(1->2) was an accident, and hence simply ignoring it without taking any action -- instead of terminating the session? > > 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 > [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.
