FpML Issues Tracker
closed
Minor
Always
Schema
Admin
mgratacos
Summary
It seems that not enough attention has been paid to designing response messages in the initial draft of 4.0. Outlined below are some changes we would like to see in the standard.
We think the message "MessageRejected" is based on the incorrect message type.
It is based on NotificationMessage, but this has a header that excludes the tag
The background to this is that we are designing front-office/back-office communication based on asynchronous notification/response messages. An existing notification/response message pair is TradeAffirmation/TradeAffirmed. But we miss the equivalent response to TradeAffirmed for the negative case of the trade not being affirmed.
Actually we intend to use the messages TradeCreated, TradeAmended, and TradeCancelled as notifications from front-office to back-office, and we need the possibility of positive and negatives responses to these messages. We prefer generically named response messages that can be used for all the above notifications. MessageRejected already exists in the draft FpML 4.0, so we intend to use this so long as the defect mentioned earlier is rectified, and it is extended as described below. For positive responses we propose a new message, MessageAccepted, that would be very similar to TradeAffirmed.
For both the response messages, MessageAccepted and MessageRejected, we suggest
two extra tags:
Additionally we would like to see MessageRejected expanded with the addition of
complexTypes
Example definitions:
Example Messages:
Notes:
mgratacos
03/14/07 11:34 am
The MessageRejected messsage has an optional inReplyTo element even it is defined as a NotificationMessage.
The other fields should be defined as extensions since they contain internal data.