[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/48e50789 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
Hi We have implemented that scenario with a session level reject. So we keep the session logged on, but send a session level reject back to the counter-party. Having said that.. i'm not sure what the counter-party would then do as their side would be expecting to use the new sequence number they had specified in the sequence reset message. And the very likely outcome is the next message they send will have a sequence number lower than we expect, so we will then log them off. Clive > 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.
