Re: [Quickfix-developers] Conforming with the CME

[Oren M. <or...@qu...>]

Yes.  But I think the issue at hand is what they do, not what they=20
should do.  It's not the first non-standard behavior we've had to work=20=

around, though probably the oddest.

--oren

On Sep 10, 2004, at 9:27 AM, Joerg Thoennes wrote:

> Oren Miller wrote:
>> Timothy Yates wrote:
> >
>>> I believe for iTOPS orders the SenderCompID can change.
>>> This is described in the Ilink 2.0 developer guide under 'Trading
>>> on Behalf of a Client'.  Essentially, part of the SenderCompID is a
>>> firm identifier. When you trade on behalf of another client you
>>> have to change this.
> >
>> So you can't just use a SenderSubID?
>
> How about FIX 4.2 fields OnBehalfOfCompID and DeliverToCompID? There=20=

> are a plenty of fields for Order routing in FIX. CME should takes=20
> these fields instead of inventing a new mechanism.
>
> Cheers, J=F6rg
>
> --=20
> Joerg Thoennes
>                                http://macd.com
> Tel.: +49 (0)241 44597-24      Macdonald Associates GmbH
> Fax : +49 (0)241 44597-10      Lothringer Str. 52, D-52070 Aachen
>