How to request an enum extension for tag 63?

1

Hi,
Can anyone please guide me know how to submit a request to add an additional value in the enum for tag 63?

I have posted a query on how to indicate OAUX settlements in Spain market: Indicating OAUX transactions in Spain market
It seems there is no solution and hence wanted to raise change request for the same.

Appreciate your guidance.

Thanks,
Ramjee.

2

Hi Ramjee, maybe you can post more than just the acronym (OAUX) here to explain the business requirement. As a FIX member you can join one of the FIX working groups to bring forward your request. It starts with a business requirement and a perceived gap in FIX. Maybe it is not a gap but just a difference in terminology. The working group can then submit a Gap Analysis to the FIX Global Technical Committee for discussion and approval. The design for an actual extension of FIX, e.g. a new value for an existing tag is then determined by the GTC.

Please understand that a formal process is needed to extend the standard, even if it is rather lightweight in the case of FIX. The objective is to avoid redundancies or inconsistencies as much as possible.

Regards,
Hanno.

1 Like
3

Hi Klein,
Thanks again for your guidance.

I have earlier posted a query in detail regarding OAUX transactions: Indicating OAUX transactions in Spain market
However it seems it is an open question for everyone and have seen no suggestions. Hence I thought it might be a change needed. I will join the working group as you suggested.

Regards,
Ramjee.

4

Hi Ramjee,

I somehow missed your earlier post or forgot about it again. OAUX seems to be quite specific to Spain but the underlying business requirement may be generic if my little research is valid (https://www.clearstream.com/clearstream-en/products-and-services/market-coverage/europe-t2s/spain/settlement-services-spain-1279196).

The context of OAUX seems to be so-called “Ancilliary” transactions defined as “a bilateral settlement procedure that may be used by brokers for settling orders” whereby both parties need to use the same instruction to get it settled. It basically stands for a settlement procedure defined out-of-band instead of inside the settlement message. Hence your idea of extending SettlType(63) sounds like the right approach. Maybe the Global Post-Trade Working Group is the right one to address this. It is an active group within FIX.