more 4.2 errors?

, ,
1

Imported from previous forum

2

In the 4.2 spec, it appears that IOIOthSvc (24) of message “Indication Of Interest” has been removed (it existed in the 4.1 definition). Is this an error or intentional? It appears erroneous because there is an empty row in the table where the it normally would have been.

This also appears to be the case for WaveNo (105) of message “List Execute”, “List Status”, and “List Cancel Request”

Please inform me whether the ommission is intentional.

Also, In the message “Bid Request”, the field FutSettDate (64) and Account (1) are not specified whether they are optional or required.

What should they be?

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks.

3

Yes, FIX 4.2 removed/retired IOIOthSvc (24) and eliminated the WaveNo and it’s intended function.

Per the FIX 4.2 Release Notes:

  • "Removed/retired the IOIOthSvc field from the IOI message and field reference as it is no longer used/applicable. [PC19991221_26]"

  • "Added and significantly enhanced Program/Basket/List Trading functionality. [PC20000119_5]
    …

    • Removed WaveNo field and feature. "

In the message “Bid Request”, the field FutSettDate (64) and Account (1) should be “N” in the Req’d column. This will be addressed in the first FIX 4.2 Errata.

> In the 4.2 spec, it appears that IOIOthSvc (24) of message “Indication Of Interest” has been removed (it existed in the 4.1 definition). Is this an error or intentional? It appears erroneous because there is an empty row in the table where the it normally would have been.
>
> This also appears to be the case for WaveNo (105) of message “List Execute”, “List Status”, and “List Cancel Request”
>
> Please inform me whether the ommission is intentional.
>
> Also, In the message “Bid Request”, the field FutSettDate (64) and Account (1) are not specified whether they are optional or required.
>
> What should they be?
>
> Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!
> Thanks.
>