MTF minutes - Aug. 1, 2008

["Brian Lynn" <brian.lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Attendees
=========
Robert S, Brookpath
Andrew J, Handcoded
Lyteck L, ISDA
Christian, Message Automation
Brian L, GEM

Regrets
======
Irina Y, ISDA
Marc G, ISDA
Harry McA, BNPP

Current actions
============
- Andrew is working on the gap analysis of the messages; he has done much of
the analysis but is still working on the write up.  He hopes to have it
ready for next meeting.
- Robert - took the trade side example and modified it use the model that he
is proposing.
- Marc  is on vacation until next week, so has not produced an updated
version of the identification paper
- Irina has sent feedback on her actions; we'll close the remaining
- Lyteck has circulated a list of optional Booleans.  He will split these by
working group and ask for input on each, creating issues for each WG.


Issues
======
We discussed several issues.  We will close a couple based on feedback from
the EDWG.
Issue 541 - Brian to follow up with Harry

Party Roles
===========
We reviewed Robert's document.
- we discussed whether the trade references should be hrefs, but didn't
reach a conclusion - it depends on how the message is used (e.g. whether
there are trades in the message or it is standalone.)  We will defer this
until after the other work we agreed (perhaps it will end up being a choice,
depending on the type of message.

We concluded that we should put together a scenario and define the message
data that needs to be included in each message, then recast the example to
handle each of the phases.  The scenario might be something like:
- IM receives an execution notification from a e-trading platform
- IM gives up the trade to their PB and allocates it to several (at least
two) funds.
- IM notifies their custodian of the activity.
- perhaps one or more subsequent messages, e.g. related to settlement??
Robert will work on this, using input from Matthew R., etc.

Process issues
==============
We discussed Brian's brief document on process issues contributing to
modeling inconsistency.  There was general agreement on the issues. We did
not discuss possible solutions in any detail.

Message categorization
======================
We agreed to discuss this at the next meeting.


Next Meeting
============
Aug. 8 - message categorization