This thread is intended to capture errors and omissions discovered in the FIX Standard during 2023, e.g. misspellings or gaffes in the description. These will eventually be reviewed by the Global Technical Committee and be corrected with a standard Gap Analysis and a FIX Extension Pack.
Please report errors you may encounter when using the FIX Protocol. The GTC will use the same thread to capture issues it identifies.
Thank you,
GTC Project Management (gtcpm)
Typo in elaboration of ExecInst(18)=D (Percent of volume):
Indicates that the sender does not want to be all of the volume on the floor vs. a specific percentage.
Replace “be” with “see”.
FIX 4.4 spec used “***” as setting for the Req’d column of components to identify those fields that are required if and only if the component itself is required in the given message. This information has been lost with FIX 5.0. For example, the Instrument component is required in the TradeCaptureReport(35=AE) message. Therefore the field Symbol(55) is also required and has a field usage comment that says Use “[N/A]” for products which do not have a symbol.
The following components and fields are affected:
The field usage comment should be enhanced to describe the nature of the conditional requirement.
I believe by saying “sender does not want to be al the volume” the intent is the sender of the order doesn’t want his order to be executed if that is 100% of the volume available on the market/venue. So “be” seems correct to me.
@hanno.klein I agree with the comment from @anuragdwivedi is correct. This is an ExecInst, which means the order submitter is intsructing the dealer that the order submitter does not want to be all of the volume as this would potentially move the market to the submitter’s disadvantage. This is not a typo of “be”.
Ok, then it is not about “seeing”, would still sound better as follows, but I am not a native speaker 
Indicates that the sender does not want all of the volume to be on the floor vs. a specific percentage.
The current elaboration is:
" Indicates that the sender does not want to be all of the volume on the floor vs. a specific percentage."
Which I believe is correct…
Am also no native speaker or trader but think that
is grammatically correct unless it is a special phrase amongst traders that they literally are the volume on the floor.
Redundant line break in elaboration of OrderOrigination(1724)=6 (Order received from a foreign dealer equivalent). The last part “in that foreign jurisdiction.” should not be on a separate line. The elaboration should read:
A foreign dealer equivalent is a person in the business of trading securities in a foreign jurisdiction in a manner analogous to an investment dealer and that is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of a signatory to the International Organization of Securities Commissions’ (IOSCO) Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding in that foreign jurisdiction.
MDQuoteType(1070) should use the code set from QuoteType(537) (QuoteTypeCodeSet) instead of its own (MDQuoteTypeCodeSet).
Pedigree of MDQuoteType(1070) seems incorrect (EP7 does not show the addition of the field and the enums were supposedly added with EP32), to be analyzed.
Hello, it has been pointed out to me that of the three ‘Trade Type’ fields (828, 855 and 2896), the first two are available on Execution Report messages but the last one isn’t. I assume this is simply a gap and propose that 2896 be added to the Execution Report message.