|
Transport Independence Framework
< Previous Next >
Re: Definition of Garbled message as per FIXT.1.1
Mahesh Kumaraguru <>
17 Jan 2010 5:57AM ET Jim,
I thought the order given in FIXT Header Mapping Table on Page 31 of 66 is correct. This was confirmed by Lisa Taikitsadaporn of Brook Path Partners at
http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/090515da
Regards,
K. Mahesh
> Mahesh, I don't believe that we reached this consensus on FIXT.1.1 in
> terms of extending the tag order to SenderCompID, TargetCompID and
> ApplVerID. There was considerable push back.
>
>
> > In FIX_Transport_1.1.pdf page 38 of 66 (March 2008) defines a Garbled
> > message as
> >
> > [start quote]
> >
> > BeginString (tag #8) is not the first tag in a message or is not of
> > the format 8=FIXT.n.m.
> >
> > BodyLength (tag #9) is not the second tag in a message or does not
> > contain the correct byte count.
> >
> > MsgType (tag #35) is not the third tag in a message.
> >
> > Checksum (tag #10) is not the last tag or contains an incorrect value.
> >
> > [End quote]
> >
> > The following additions should be made to the above list of
> > definitions of a garbled message
> >
> > SenderCompID (tag #49) is not the fourth tag in a message.
> >
> > TargetCompID (tag #56) is not the fifth tag in a message.
> >
> > ApplVerID (tag #1128) if present in message is not the sixth tag in a
> > message.
> >
> > Non numeric Tag is present in the message, for example ^X=123^
> >
> > (Request :- If this is not the correct forum for discussing
> > FIX_Transport_1.1.pdf, please let me know the correct forum)
> >
> > Regards,
> > K. Mahesh
Re: Definition of Garbled message as per FIXT.1.1
Mahesh Kumaraguru 17 Jan 2010 5:57AM ET
|
