FpML Issues Tracker
closed
Major
Always
Schema
Admin
benjlis
Summary
The type BrokerConfirmation is weakly defined:
1. The element has one mandatory child element. What data does this element convey that its children don't? Can it be flattened? 2. The definition is rhetorical. It needs more flesh. 3. brokerConfirmationType is a type - the word type is redundant and should be removed.
Notes:
apparry
03/07/07 11:58 am
This is a confirmation message sent from the executing broker to the parties to the execution
The model appears wrong, it is both weakly defined, and incorrectly located
JPM supports this ( AJ, AP, MR, HMcA )
mgratacos
11/21/07 2:59 pm
CDWG: participants (DTCC and T-Zero) think that it’s not worth doing these changes.
mgratacos
11/21/07 3:01 pm
There are some architectural about naming and containers that should be tackled by the Modelling Task Force.
mgratacos
11/27/07 5:13 pm
Suggestion from Ben: Identifies the market sector in which the trade has been arranged.
mgratacos
12/07/07 9:08 am
Documentation of the complex type has been updated in the 4.3 (4.3 branch) and 4.4 (trunk).
iyermakova
10/05/18 4:15 pm
This issue is closed.
This is modeling change recommendation: to simplify brokerConfirmation component by removing one level BrokerConfirmationType. If changed, this change would be none-backward compatible change. Some group members believe that this issue is not worth of fixing. Plus, it looks like the current model tries to preserve ISDA defined naming.