FIX 4.2 Changes re: NYSE FESC Initiative

, ,
1

Imported from previous forum

2

For the Member Firm Drop Copy initiative of NYSE FESC system, SIAC proposed several changes to FIX 4.2, specifically to create 3 new user defined tags and to add 4 currently existing tags to the Ex Rpt message template.
My question deals with the addition of the new fields to the Ex Rpt message template which has been assigned a tracking number of [PC19991229_1].
These tags (21 (HandInst), 110 (MinQty), 111 (MaxFloor) and 210 (MaxShow)) are needed to satisfy the FESC requirement for capturing special instruction information regarding an order.
The question is how these added ExRpt fields may be handled in FIX 4.1 for backward compatibility. They are existing tags added to an existing message type. If they appear in a FIX 4.1 ExRpt message, will they be discarded or will they be allowed to pass thru? How does this affect FIX engines that are supplied by Vendors?

3

[ original email was from George Wolf - georgew@trinitech.com ]
Gerry,

I am looking at the FESC spec, dated 8/16/99, and I do not see that the execution report message requires these tags (see table 4.4.1 in that document).

Has this spec been updated but no posted on nyse.com yet?

> For the Member Firm Drop Copy initiative of NYSE FESC system, SIAC proposed several changes to FIX 4.2, specifically to create 3 new user defined tags and to add 4 currently existing tags to the Ex Rpt message template.
> My question deals with the addition of the new fields to the Ex Rpt message template which has been assigned a tracking number of [PC19991229_1].
> These tags (21 (HandInst), 110 (MinQty), 111 (MaxFloor) and 210 (MaxShow)) are needed to satisfy the FESC requirement for capturing special instruction information regarding an order.
> The question is how these added ExRpt fields may be handled in FIX 4.1 for backward compatibility. They are existing tags added to an existing message type. If they appear in a FIX 4.1 ExRpt message, will they be discarded or will they be allowed to pass thru? How does this affect FIX engines that are supplied by Vendors?
>
>

4

This is something which would require bi-lateral agreement with one’s counterparties. These fields are not part of the ExecRpt message in FIX 4.1 and thus could result in a session-level reject. This may require modifications to a counterparty’s FIX systems in order to accept and/or use these fields. (Note: this follow-up should not be done via the FIX website’s Discussion forum)

> For the Member Firm Drop Copy initiative of NYSE FESC system, SIAC proposed several changes to FIX 4.2, specifically to create 3 new user defined tags and to add 4 currently existing tags to the Ex Rpt message template.
> My question deals with the addition of the new fields to the Ex Rpt message template which has been assigned a tracking number of [PC19991229_1].
> These tags (21 (HandInst), 110 (MinQty), 111 (MaxFloor) and 210 (MaxShow)) are needed to satisfy the FESC requirement for capturing special instruction information regarding an order.
> The question is how these added ExRpt fields may be handled in FIX 4.1 for backward compatibility. They are existing tags added to an existing message type. If they appear in a FIX 4.1 ExRpt message, will they be discarded or will they be allowed to pass thru? How does this affect FIX engines that are supplied by Vendors?
>
>