[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

MTF minutes, April 4, 2008



Attendees
=========
Robert Stowsky, Brookpath
Andrew J, Handcoded
Lyteck, ISDA
Jason, BGI
Brian L, GEM
Matthew R, JPM
Henri, DTCC
Irina, ISDA
Marc, ISDA.


Apologies
=========
Christian N, Message Automation


Vote results:

Brian summarized the results of the vote (see attached).

The summary was as follows: 
1) showed that the preferred option of the voters (by a 4-3 margin) was a
single message for all 3 request types (new/modify/cancel).

2) showed that 6 out of 7 voters approved all three measures (correlate
messages based on business object ID, consolidate processing status returns,
and consolidate request messages of a given business process across object
types.)

Subsequent to the vote tabulation, another vote was received.  If counted,
this would not affect #2, but would make #1 a tie.


Current status of MTF issues
============================
We discussed this topic.  There was no significant update on status.

We agreed to contact the validation wg to discuss:
1) the impact of views on validation rules - we may need to defined view
specific rules vs. generic rules, but in any event the rules are tied to a
namespace.
2) warn them that the MTF issues may result in changes to validation rules.


Object Identification requirements
==================================
We discussed these at some length, focusing on the first 3 or 4 requirements
Brian circulated.
We agreed on the concept that we need to differentiate between identifiers
that the document creator deems to be immutable (or at least not mutable
without notifying the recipient), and other "tags" or "labels", that the
sender believes/asserts are used by others to identify the object.

JP: are there two objects, or one?  do we need to be able to send back the
recipient's identifier?

Brian agreed to update the identification requirements document to try to
clarify some points that were raised by the participants.

Actions
=======
RS to look at MR's scenarios and propose how to represent in FpML.

Next week
=========
Continue discussion of handling trades, parties, and accounts in
agency/prime brokerage cases.


Brian Lynn

Attachment: messaging_vote.xls
Description: MS-Excel spreadsheet