FpML Issues Tracker
closed
Minor
Always
Schema
SteveTurner
mgratacos
Summary
[Per Last Call Working Draft - July 29, 2011 (build 3)] The ClearingStatus message model is confusing: - is it the status of clearing as a whole or specific item(s) within clearing that is the subject matter? The wording clearingStatusItem suggests the latter; the specification documentation the former. - clearingStatusValue is unusual naming - without an associated clearingValueType - statusAppliesTo - Annotated definition: Reference to parties currently in this status, e.g. parties for which we are awaiting approval. There is no we in a party neutral message. Current state or future state? Either there is one state at a point in time that is recognised by all parties, or every party can have its own status at a point in time. Generally it is quite unclear as to how this is meant to be used.
Notes:
mgratacos
09/28/11 4:45 pm
Sent to the Business Process Working Group for discussion.
mgratacos
09/06/19 5:28 am
AWG 2019-09-05
mgratacos
10/30/19 7:13 am
Thanks Steve! We’ll update the documentation of the message clarifying that it is supposed to be used by the clearinghouse. We can clarify it in the schemas and the written documentation.
mgratacos
07/01/20 12:43 pm
Updated the documentation of the message in the schema and the written documentation clarifying that it is supposed to be used by the clearing house.