Also, Matt, it might be helpful to look at Martin's overview slides. http://nmwg.internet2.edu/meetings/ggf14/ggf14-1-swany.ppt One idea for going forward, then I'll retreat back to my cave. The NM-WG version-2 [current] schemata are mostly a framework for separating data and metadata. This idea, IMHO, would enhance the IPPM proposal while requiring very little change to the proposed schema. This common framework would, then, give some minimal level of common ground for implementations that want to support both IPPM and NMWG versions of traceroute. Since the NMWG schemata already have open-source implementations, this would be an advantage for the IPPM effort. -Dan Matthew J Zekauskas wrote:

Some folks are bringing an XML representation of traceroute information to the IETF IPPM working group for consideration as a working group item. I'd like to understand how this relates to NMWG work; I believe you have some traceroute bits in some schema.

Would someone that knows (Or has been following nmwg more closely than I have recently) give me a pointer to the nmwg work? I'll forward it to the IPPM list. (Jerome Durand mentioned one thing in <http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ippm/current/msg00726.html> .)

The proposal in the IETF is <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-niccolini-ippm-storetraceroutes-01.txt>

if anyone is interested. I'd be interested in any comments...

--Matt, NM-WG lurker, IPPM co-chair