# Proposed recommendation for user defined tags **URL:** \ **Category:** General Q&A\ **Tags:** general-qa, imported, xid\_167898\ **Created:** [November 20, 2009, 2:58am UTC](https://forum.fixtrading.org/t/proposed-recommendation-for-user-defined-tags/4946 "2009-11-20T02:58:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ltaikit](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex010/user_avatar/forum.fixtrading.org/ltaikit/32/743_2.png) [@ltaikit](https://forum.fixtrading.org/u/ltaikit)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 2:58am UTC](https://forum.fixtrading.org/t/proposed-recommendation-for-user-defined-tags/4946/1 "2009-11-20T02:58:33Z")
Imported from previous forum ---
**Author:** ![ltaikit](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex010/user_avatar/forum.fixtrading.org/ltaikit/32/743_2.png) [@ltaikit](https://forum.fixtrading.org/u/ltaikit)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 2:58am UTC](https://forum.fixtrading.org/t/proposed-recommendation-for-user-defined-tags/4946/2 "2009-11-20T02:58:33Z")
The Global Technical Committee Governance Board had met to discuss the issue of user defined tags and the lack of available tag numbers for registration, as raised by this thread: [http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/e23eb3de](http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/e23eb3de) The GTCGov is proposing the follow short term solution while we work on a long term policy regarding user defined tags. For the next two weeks, until December 4th 2009, we are seeking comments regarding this short term solution. The proposed short term solution: 1. tag numbers in the range 20,000 to 39,999 is to be allowed for use as custom tags under bilateral agreement between counterparties. However, FPL will not provide a registration process for tags in this range. Users are free to use tags in this range as they wish. 2. tag numbers in the range 10,000 to 19,999 will remain, as currently stated in the FIX Specification, as tags that are for private use within a single firm - in other words not used between counterparties outside of a given firm 3. tag numbers 40,000 and above are not to be used by anyone. FPL has reserved all tag numbers 40,000 and above for future use. The purpose of this short term solution proposal, especially #1 above, is to mitigate the immediate needs of the user community that require custom tags now. We encourage all users to first search the existing user defined tag database and reuse an already defined tag that closely matches the requirements. Please provide your comments regarding this proposal by responding to this post. If you prefer to provide comments privately, please email me directly. Thank you. Lisa Taikitsadaporn GTC Governance Board Member ---
**Author:** ![kaymahes\_x](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c2a13f/32.png) [@kaymahes\_x](https://forum.fixtrading.org/u/kaymahes_x)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 1:40pm UTC](https://forum.fixtrading.org/t/proposed-recommendation-for-user-defined-tags/4946/3 "2009-11-22T13:40:40Z")
> FPL has reserved all tag numbers 40,000 and above for future use. Upto what number should others not use? Million / Billion / … ? Since TagNum is of Base type int and I could not find any minimum / maximum size definitions, is there a limit on the maximum tag number that can be used in FIX messages? For example can tag number 999999 be used in a FIX message ? I do not see any restriction because FIXProtocol is Strings exchanged on TCP so any length integer number can be transmitted subject to parsing capabilities of systems at both sides. Has using decimal tag numbers like 123.45=Value^ been considered? Has using alphabetic tags like SECTYP=Value^ been considered? > The Global Technical Committee Governance Board had met to discuss the > issue of user defined tags and the lack of available tag numbers for > registration, as raised by this thread: > [http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/e23eb3de](http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/e23eb3de) > > The GTCGov is proposing the follow short term solution while we work on > a long term policy regarding user defined tags. For the next two weeks, > until December 4th 2009, we are seeking comments regarding this short > term solution. > > The proposed short term solution: > > 1. tag numbers in the range 20,000 to 39,999 is to be allowed for use as > custom tags under bilateral agreement between counterparties. > However, FPL will not provide a registration process for tags in this > range. Users are free to use tags in this range as they wish. > > 2. tag numbers in the range 10,000 to 19,999 will remain, as currently > stated in the FIX Specification, as tags that are for private use > within a single firm - in other words not used between counterparties > outside of a given firm > > 3. tag numbers 40,000 and above are not to be used by anyone. FPL has > reserved all tag numbers 40,000 and above for future use. > > The purpose of this short term solution proposal, especially #1 above, > is to mitigate the immediate needs of the user community that require > custom tags now. > > We encourage all users to first search the existing user defined tag > database and reuse an already defined tag that closely matches the > requirements. > > Please provide your comments regarding this proposal by responding to > this post. If you prefer to provide comments privately, please email > me directly. > > Thank you. Lisa Taikitsadaporn GTC Governance Board Member ---
**Author:** ![fplpo\_x](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7ab992/32.png) [@fplpo\_x](https://forum.fixtrading.org/u/fplpo_x)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2009, 3:56pm UTC](https://forum.fixtrading.org/t/proposed-recommendation-for-user-defined-tags/4946/4 "2009-11-22T15:56:11Z")
[original email was from Ryan Pierce (FPL Technical Director) - [ryan.pierce@fixprotocol.org](mailto:ryan.pierce@fixprotocol.org) ] \> Upto what number should others not use? Million / Billion / … ? > Since TagNum is of Base type int and I could not find any minimum / > maximum size definitions, is there a limit on the maximum tag number > that can be used in FIX messages? For example can tag number 999999 be > used in a FIX message ? I do not see any restriction because FIXProtocol > is Strings exchanged on TCP so any length integer number can be > transmitted subject to parsing capabilities of systems at both sides. Currently, there is no upper limit on the highest tag number. It is just a positive integer, and as it is ASCII, not binary, the number of bits are not defined. However, according to the spec itself, firms are not allowed to us any tag \>= 10,000 to communicate between firms. Those tags are supposed to be used within one firm only. Under the new proposal, 10,000-19,999 is for internal use within a firm. 20,000-39,999 is for use between firms. Any use at all above 40,000 is not allowed. So the question of upper limits on tags isn’t really all that important, especially under the new proposal. > Has using decimal tag numbers like 123.45=Value^ been considered? Has > using alphabetic tags like SECTYP=Value^ been considered? No. These are not allowed. ---
**Author:** ![gmal\_x](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/87869e/32.png) [@gmal\_x](https://forum.fixtrading.org/u/gmal_x)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 3:00am UTC](https://forum.fixtrading.org/t/proposed-recommendation-for-user-defined-tags/4946/5 "2009-11-24T03:00:22Z")
Has anyone considered the role that the StrategyParameters repeating group (tags 957-960) might play in allowing customization? I alway though the introduction of this repeating group was a great idea - I’ve always tried to encourage it’s use in passing custom tags bewteen firms. Could this be used as an alternative to adding tags 20,00 - 39,999? ---
**Author:** ![hanno.klein](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex010/user_avatar/forum.fixtrading.org/hanno.klein/32/38_2.png) [@hanno.klein](https://forum.fixtrading.org/u/hanno.klein)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 8:48am UTC](https://forum.fixtrading.org/t/proposed-recommendation-for-user-defined-tags/4946/6 "2009-11-24T08:48:46Z")
My view is that StrategyParameters only covers a subset of all possible user-defined tags and is only intended for strategies. The group is also only part of a small subset of messages, i.e. core order handling. However, your point is absolutely valid that there is already a generic means to convey information. The 5K-10K range has a large number of generic fields with names such as Algoxxx1, Algoxxx2, Algoxxx3,… or xxxReservedxxx. On top of that the StrategyParameters group is mirrored by UDFs 5957-5960, removing the need to have any of the generic UDFs. Your comment helps to formulate a transition strategy towards a new UDF policy. The 20K-40K range can then be used for such UDFs without the need to make the names and usages public. I would assume that this was the motivation of the submitters when they entered UDFs between 5K and 10K without given an actual name or description. Regards, Hanno. > Has anyone considered the role that the StrategyParameters repeating > group (tags 957-960) might play in allowing customization? I alway > though the introduction of this repeating group was a great idea - I’ve > always tried to encourage it’s use in passing custom tags bewteen firms. > Could this be used as an alternative to adding tags 20,00 - 39,999?