Each application is currently judged on its appropriateness of containerisation based on the answers provided. The judgements may not reflect the actual state of an application on the ecosystem in which it operates.
This RFE is calling for a change of wording from the appropriateness of containerisation to the level of technical risks to containerisation.
For example: green - low risk, amber - medium risk, red - high risk.
An application with a lot of 'red' would be seen as having significant migration risk, but it allows for a case with 1 or two reds to be read more consistently with what is seen in practice.
An example is the question on legal constraints. If an application is identified as being subject to regulatory laws, for example PCI compliance, it is shown with 1 red answer and is presented as being 'not suitable for migration'. A better way to phrase this is that there is a 'risk in migration'.
The customer may mitigate this risk by adopting PCI compliance at the platform level, the app in question may not actually need a technical changes in order to operate successfully within a PCI compliant cluster. As such, representing the application as 'unsuitable for containerisation' is not a valid assumption, and dissuades users from considering these applications.
Switching to terms which indicate risk does, maintains the identification of possible challenges, without removing the application from consideration.
Each application is currently judged on its appropriateness of containerisation based on the answers provided. The judgements may not reflect the actual state of an application on the ecosystem in which it operates.
This RFE is calling for a change of wording from the appropriateness of containerisation to the level of technical risks to containerisation.
For example: green - low risk, amber - medium risk, red - high risk. An application with a lot of 'red' would be seen as having significant migration risk, but it allows for a case with 1 or two reds to be read more consistently with what is seen in practice.
An example is the question on legal constraints. If an application is identified as being subject to regulatory laws, for example PCI compliance, it is shown with 1 red answer and is presented as being 'not suitable for migration'. A better way to phrase this is that there is a 'risk in migration'.
The customer may mitigate this risk by adopting PCI compliance at the platform level, the app in question may not actually need a technical changes in order to operate successfully within a PCI compliant cluster. As such, representing the application as 'unsuitable for containerisation' is not a valid assumption, and dissuades users from considering these applications.
Switching to terms which indicate risk does, maintains the identification of possible challenges, without removing the application from consideration.