PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - FAST Session Control Protocol Version 1.1

, ,
1

Imported from previous forum

2

The Global Technical Committee Governance Board met on September 20, 2007 and reviewed and approved the FAST Session Control Protocol Version 1.1. Approval means that the specification enters into a 30 day public comment period in which public review and feedback is encouraged. Once the Public Comment period closes, the GTC Governance Board will meet to review public comments before final approval.

Please post feedback, comments, and questions as replies to this discussion thread.

A link to the FAST SCP 1.1 specification can be found at

http://www.fixprotocol.org/PUBLIC-FAST-SCP11

The Public Comment Period closes on October 25, 2007

3

[ original email was from Darshan Khedekar - darshan.khedekar.ext@deutsche-boerse.com ]
Hi,

What if the datagram oriented data exchange implementation choses to introduce the level 2 conformance features such as dynamic template exchange?

Shouldn’t we introduce one more level of conformance as the implementation need not necessarily have a Hello - Alert i.e. session based approach to data exchange?

Darshan

4

In general, the levels of conformance describe capabilities of implementations rather than characteristics of particular message flows. The only hard requirement on the message flow is that the first template transmitted is resetting.

So you’d need a Level 3 implementation to send and receive templates in-band. However, the fact that you’re using a Level3 implementation does not mean you’ll actually have to use all its features, including sending Hello.

/David

Hi,

What if the datagram oriented data exchange implementation choses
to introduce the level 2 conformance features such as dynamic
template exchange?

Shouldn’t we introduce one more level of conformance as the
implementation need not necessarily have a Hello - Alert i.e. session
based approach to data exchange?

Darshan

5

[ original email was from Darshan Khedekar - darshan.khedekar.ext@deutsche-boerse.com ]
I do not understand the use of having a TemplateDecl message.

Any template ID will be unusable in the session unless the TemplateDef is available. Why would anyone send only the TemplateDecl and not send the TemplateDef ?

I think having only the TemplateDef would be sufficient to establish the template for message exchange dynamically.

Darshan

6

See http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/6c9844d2 for a discussion and some examples.

/David

I do not understand the use of having a TemplateDecl message.

Any template ID will be unusable in the session unless the TemplateDef
is available. Why would anyone send only the TemplateDecl and not send
the TemplateDef ?

I think having only the TemplateDef would be sufficient to establish the
template for message exchange dynamically.

Darshan

7

[ original email was from Darshan Khedekar - darshan.khedekar.ext@deutsche-boerse.com ]
Sorry, the subject was wrong fopr the previous posts.

As the FAST SCP 1.1 clearly lists the conformance requirements of each level I am sure that the vendors are going to use this as a benchmark for their implementations.

In this situation I would suggest to change the clause on page 14 section 7.3
• must conform to level 2,
to “could conform to level 2” so that an implementation that supports dynamic template exchange but does not maintain sessions also achieves level 3 conformance level.

Or a NOTE as in level 1 clearly explaining the conformance requirements would be helpful.

8

The word should remain “must” since the implementation really must support the Hello and Alert messages at this level.

Section 7 says: “Even though an implementation conforms to a certain level, it is not required to make use of all features in a particular setup.”, so I think the option to leave out the Hello message even though you’re using a level 3 implementation is covered.

/David

Sorry, the subject was wrong fopr the previous posts.

As the FAST SCP 1.1 clearly lists the conformance requirements of each
level I am sure that the vendors are going to use this as a benchmark
for their implementations.

In this situation I would suggest to change the clause on page 14
section 7.3 • must conform to level 2, to “could conform to level 2” so
that an implementation that supports dynamic template exchange but does
not maintain sessions also achieves level 3 conformance level.

Or a NOTE as in level 1 clearly explaining the conformance requirements
would be helpful.

9

[ original email was from Mikael Brännström - m.brannstrom@ngm.se ]
Hi,

In FAST 1.1 the template element has a dictionary attribute. However, in the TemplateDef message in SCP 1.1 a corresponding dictionary field does not exist. Why?

I guess it would still be valid to send the dictionary in the “Other” group of the TemplateDef message, since the spec says that FAST SCP 1.1 implementation must interpret a TemplateDef message as if it was reading the XML translation. Is this correct?

/Mikael Brännström

10

Hi,

Shouldn’t it be already available from the http://www.fixprotocol.org/fastspec ?

Thanks.

The Global Technical Committee Governance Board met on September 20,
2007 and reviewed and approved the FAST Session Control Protocol Version
1.1. Approval means that the specification enters into a 30 day public
comment period in which public review and feedback is encouraged. Once
the Public Comment period closes, the GTC Governance Board will meet to
review public comments before final approval.

Please post feedback, comments, and questions as replies to this
discussion thread.

A link to the FAST SCP 1.1 specification can be found at

http://www.fixprotocol.org/PUBLIC-FAST-SCP11

The Public Comment Period closes on October 25, 2007