Hi, I have to disagree with the statement that the “floating leg should be also settled in [a] different currency” in this case. Example ird-ex29 represents a cross-currency swap paying fixed on KRW against 3M USD Libor. The fixed leg is non-deliverable, settling in USD; the floating leg settles in the currency of its notional i.e. USD also – this is not an unusual arrangement. Given that the [i]settlementProvision[/i] applies (only) to the stream in which it appears in the cross-currency case, producing [i]settlementProvision[/i] under both streams in the single-currency case is a consistent approach. Indeed this may be easier for both message producer and consumer, as there is no requirement to check whether local settlement provisions also apply to the “other” leg. In general, FpML usage for IR swaps avoids referencing across streams, and repetition of information within streams is tolerated for ease of processing (e.g. calculation period dates, payment dates, notional amount …). Best regards, Harry
