FpML Issues Tracker

1064: ClearingStatus clearingStatusItem model

September 2, 2011

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

    • The Clearing Status message is supposed to be sent from the Clearing House to the participants.
    • The message sends the clearing status of the trade or the trade package.
    • It’s a centralized model so there is no perspective.
    • Follow up with Stever Turner on the issue.
  • 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.

  • Leave an update

    You must be logged in to post an update.