Error in definition of Email and News messages?

, ,
1

Imported from previous forum

2

[ original email was from Gerard Putter - Gerard.Putter@fincomplus.com ]
In the FIX 4.2 specifications, of March 1, 2000, the Email and News messages have the fields "RoutingType" and "RoutingID", both part of the repeating group "RelatedSym". The Comments columns for both fields states "Required if NoRoutingIDs is > 0". However, neither message contains a field "NoRoutingIDs". Considering that routing per related symbol seems like an unlikely scenario anyway, I assume the definition should have been like in the IOI message, where both "RoutingType" and "RoutingID" are part of a separate repeating group, preceded by the field "NoRoutingIDs". Is this assumption correct?

3

This is a typo in the 4.2 spec. 146 (NoRelatedSym) should appear before 46 (RelatedSym) (move down) and 215 (NoRoutingIDs) was inadvertantly missed. The RoutingType/RoutingID fields should be in their own repeating group w/ 215 as the "count" for it, while the symbology stuff should be in its own repeating group w/ 146 as the "count" for it. We plan to correct that in an upcoming Errata (reference #: [E20001116_1], [E20001116_2], [E20000426_1]).

> In the FIX 4.2 specifications, of March 1, 2000, the Email and News messages have the fields "RoutingType" and "RoutingID", both part of the repeating group "RelatedSym". The Comments columns for both fields states "Required if NoRoutingIDs is > 0". However, neither message contains a field "NoRoutingIDs". Considering that routing per related symbol seems like an unlikely scenario anyway, I assume the definition should have been like in the IOI message, where both "RoutingType" and "RoutingID" are part of a separate repeating group, preceded by the field "NoRoutingIDs". Is this assumption correct?
>

4

[ original email was from John Hardman - yiq12@dial.pipex.com ]
Is it safe to assume that both field 146 (NoRelatedSym) and 215 (NoRoutingIDs) should be marked as NOT required ?

> This is a typo in the 4.2 spec. 146 (NoRelatedSym) should appear before 46 (RelatedSym) (move down) and 215 (NoRoutingIDs) was inadvertantly missed. The RoutingType/RoutingID fields should be in their own repeating group w/ 215 as the "count" for it, while the symbology stuff should be in its own repeating group w/ 146 as the "count" for it. We plan to correct that in an upcoming Errata (reference #: [E20001116_1], [E20001116_2], [E20000426_1]).
>
> > In the FIX 4.2 specifications, of March 1, 2000, the Email and News messages have the fields "RoutingType" and "RoutingID", both part of the repeating group "RelatedSym". The Comments columns for both fields states "Required if NoRoutingIDs is > 0". However, neither message contains a field "NoRoutingIDs". Considering that routing per related symbol seems like an unlikely scenario anyway, I assume the definition should have been like in the IOI message, where both "RoutingType" and "RoutingID" are part of a separate repeating group, preceded by the field "NoRoutingIDs". Is this assumption correct?
> >
>

5

Yes.

> Is it safe to assume that both field 146 (NoRelatedSym) and 215 (NoRoutingIDs) should be marked as NOT required ?
>
> > This is a typo in the 4.2 spec. 146 (NoRelatedSym) should appear before 46 (RelatedSym) (move down) and 215 (NoRoutingIDs) was inadvertantly missed. The RoutingType/RoutingID fields should be in their own repeating group w/ 215 as the "count" for it, while the symbology stuff should be in its own repeating group w/ 146 as the "count" for it. We plan to correct that in an upcoming Errata (reference #: [E20001116_1], [E20001116_2], [E20000426_1]).
> >
> > > In the FIX 4.2 specifications, of March 1, 2000, the Email and News messages have the fields "RoutingType" and "RoutingID", both part of the repeating group "RelatedSym". The Comments columns for both fields states "Required if NoRoutingIDs is > 0". However, neither message contains a field "NoRoutingIDs". Considering that routing per related symbol seems like an unlikely scenario anyway, I assume the definition should have been like in the IOI message, where both "RoutingType" and "RoutingID" are part of a separate repeating group, preceded by the field "NoRoutingIDs". Is this assumption correct?
> > >
> >
>