Subject: [forces] work items poll results

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 09:08:05 -0500

Folks,

Below find the results of the poll we did on the list on interesting
work  items and rankings based on those discussion.

cheers,
jamal

------
14 potential work items were posted.
For each item posted a short synopsis was included which described:
1) What it is
2) Why it is needed

A question accompanied every posted question for folks to
respond that they
a) are interested in doing the work
b) will review the work
c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG
d) do not think we should do this work

About 90 emails were exchanged over the discussion period.

The intention was to see whether there was support for any further
work in the working group, and if so to present the top 3-5 topics
to the AD to consider extending the charter of the woorking group.

The scheme used for ranking is strict priority count based;
whichever topic had relatively more responses with #a(i.e
individuals committing to do the work) gets a relatively higher
ranking.
If two topics had equal rankings with #a, the tie breaker is
decided by which had more #b responses. the #b tie-breaker is #c.
Low priority ranking is given to items with #d except when the
dissent is lower in which case the topic is tagged as "needs more
discussion".

1) Item #7 Network virtualization

2) Item #9 OF connection

3) item #6 CE CE interface

4) item #1 ForCES Model Extension

5) item #5 Northbound interface/Services definition

6) There was a tie of 4 items:

a) item #10 Various LFBs to parallel netmod port, IP, route yang models.
b) item #2 ForCES Model LFB Parallelization
c) item #3 InterFE LFB
d) item #11 Multi-CE configuring a single FE. This item had a
dissent expressed against it that it was too hard to get right.
Therefore need further discussion as to scope or if need to be
pursued.

7) item #4 XEM interface
Possible tie to #1 ranked item

8) item #14 ForCES Topology LFB
This item had a dissent expressed against it to make it lower prio.
Need further discussion as to scope if it is to be pursued.

9) Item #8 Credential system integration
There was dissent against this item that it was out of scope

10) Tie for two items:
a) item #12 Simplified SCTP TML
b) item #15 New table ops