sub-ids

, ,
1

Imported from previous forum

2

[ original email was from Ed Hungler - ehungler@siliconsummit.com ]
We have a customer whose counterparty refuses to send sub-id’s on the logon message but does send them with the application message. Is this fix compliant?

Ed Hungler
Silicon Summit Technologies

3

[ original email was from Yevgeniy Tovshteyn - yevgeniy@javtech.com ]
In my view it is completely fix compliant. Session messages are often communications between FIX engines, without getting into application represented by sub-id. For example, logon may establish FIX connection; but behind this connection could be many different applications with many different sub-ids. And it is not their job to logon, but it is the job of FIX engine.

> We have a customer whose counterparty refuses to send sub-id’s on the logon message but does send them with the application message. Is this fix compliant?
>
> Ed Hungler
> Silicon Summit Technologies
>

4

Yes it is. SenderSubID and TargetSubID are optional fields. The fact that one uses them on certain application messages shouldn’t have a bearing on their use on the Logon message. I’m assuming you are referring to SenderSubID and TargetSubID vs. OnBehalfOfCompID and DeliverToCompID which are used for a FIX session representing multiple counterparties. If the you are referring to the latter, the the answer would no.

> We have a customer whose counterparty refuses to send sub-id’s on the logon message but does send them with the application message. Is this fix compliant?
>
> Ed Hungler
> Silicon Summit Technologies
>