Fragmentation of Security Definition (list of securities))?

, ,
1

Imported from previous forum

2

Why is there no TotNoRelatedSym field in the Security Definition message to support fragmentation of large symbol lists?
(SecurityResponseType=4, list of securities)

3

[ original email was from Jim Northey - jnorthey@lasalletech.com ]
Wanted to make sure the post was complete: This was an omission in the documentation - the field is required for fragmentation:

(John Armstrong’s out of band response:
You are correct, that should be there. There is a TotNumSecurities
defined in the
spec, it just needs to be added to the message.
)

> Why is there no TotNoRelatedSym field in the Security Definition message to support fragmentation of large symbol lists?
> (SecurityResponseType=4, list of securities)
>

4

[ original email was from John Hardman - yiq12@dial.pipex.com ]
Just want to confirm that the use of the word "required" was intentional i.e. in the Security Definition message that field 393 (TotalNumSecurities) is required and not optional.

Thanks.