personal data-reserve to prevent loss RFC

[gitaaron]

Nothing to see here yet - just a template to add PR # to doc

[farhoud]

I think we can leave local pool out of this

[gitaaron]

I think we can leave local pool out of this

Can you clarify what you mean by 'local pool'?

[gitaaron]

We would like to rename 'pool' since the term is being used elsewhere. A few suggestions are:

• data-reserve
• data-reservoir
• library
• stockpile

[gitaaron]

A few ways to reduce scope -

1. Include 'free from conflicts due to real-time user updates' as a pre-condition. Create a separate design doc for 'data sharing' that covers the following story -
   "I want to share my data set with another device so that they both can read/update them in real-time."

   This could also be broken up into "file/folder" and "database" sharing.

2. Create a separate design doc for 'local' or 'colocated' data backups. By colocated I mean dedicating one or more hard-drives as backups to a working hard-drive on the same 'BOX'.

3. Link to https://github.com/functionland/docs/blob/main/docs/RFCs/pnet.md

4. Regions since this only covers personal usage

[gitaaron]

@ehsan6sha wrote -

1- mining: it will remain out of scope of dev team, as it is blockchain related
2- "probably not going to be used for end consumers (more for business)" I didn't catch what this means
3- "change wording of name ‘pool’ because it implies using public IPFS", any suggestions? cluster, network,... ?
4- It is better if we can set private clusters without VPN

1- acknowledged
2- this is in reference to removing the concept of 'regions' from current scope of work
3- see above for a few ideas I had - I think we should avoid using the name 'cluster' - even if we end up using ipfs-cluster to solve most problems here it represents an instantiation of ipfs-cluster and so will help the reader understand it is not exactly the same
4- I recommended we include our reasoning for not going with VPNs under rationale and alternatives in the pnet doc

[ehsan6sha]

@gitaaron for number 4: it adds another layer of potential failure to the system, and since Libp2p provides some features that we probably can come out good without VPN, I don't think we should add this complication.

[gitaaron]

Nothing to see here yet - just a template to add PR # to doc

[farhoud]

I think we can leave local pool out of this

[gitaaron]

I think we can leave local pool out of this

Can you clarify what you mean by 'local pool'?

[gitaaron]

We would like to rename 'pool' since the term is being used elsewhere. A few suggestions are:

• data-reserve
• data-reservoir
• library
• stockpile

[gitaaron]

A few ways to reduce scope -

1. Include 'free from conflicts due to real-time user updates' as a pre-condition. Create a separate design doc for 'data sharing' that covers the following story -
   "I want to share my data set with another device so that they both can read/update them in real-time."

   This could also be broken up into "file/folder" and "database" sharing.

2. Create a separate design doc for 'local' or 'colocated' data backups. By colocated I mean dedicating one or more hard-drives as backups to a working hard-drive on the same 'BOX'.

3. Link to https://github.com/functionland/docs/blob/main/docs/RFCs/pnet.md

4. Regions since this only covers personal usage

[gitaaron]

@ehsan6sha wrote -

1- mining: it will remain out of scope of dev team, as it is blockchain related
2- "probably not going to be used for end consumers (more for business)" I didn't catch what this means
3- "change wording of name ‘pool’ because it implies using public IPFS", any suggestions? cluster, network,... ?
4- It is better if we can set private clusters without VPN

1- acknowledged
2- this is in reference to removing the concept of 'regions' from current scope of work
3- see above for a few ideas I had - I think we should avoid using the name 'cluster' - even if we end up using ipfs-cluster to solve most problems here it represents an instantiation of ipfs-cluster and so will help the reader understand it is not exactly the same
4- I recommended we include our reasoning for not going with VPNs under rationale and alternatives in the pnet doc

[ehsan6sha]

@gitaaron for number 4: it adds another layer of potential failure to the system, and since Libp2p provides some features that we probably can come out good without VPN, I don't think we should add this complication.

[gitaaron]

Nothing to see here yet - just a template to add PR # to doc

[farhoud]

I think we can leave local pool out of this

[gitaaron]

I think we can leave local pool out of this

Can you clarify what you mean by 'local pool'?

[gitaaron]

We would like to rename 'pool' since the term is being used elsewhere. A few suggestions are:

• data-reserve
• data-reservoir
• library
• stockpile

[gitaaron]

A few ways to reduce scope -

1. Include 'free from conflicts due to real-time user updates' as a pre-condition. Create a separate design doc for 'data sharing' that covers the following story -
   "I want to share my data set with another device so that they both can read/update them in real-time."

   This could also be broken up into "file/folder" and "database" sharing.

2. Create a separate design doc for 'local' or 'colocated' data backups. By colocated I mean dedicating one or more hard-drives as backups to a working hard-drive on the same 'BOX'.

3. Link to https://github.com/functionland/docs/blob/main/docs/RFCs/pnet.md

4. Regions since this only covers personal usage

[gitaaron]

@ehsan6sha wrote -

1- mining: it will remain out of scope of dev team, as it is blockchain related
2- "probably not going to be used for end consumers (more for business)" I didn't catch what this means
3- "change wording of name ‘pool’ because it implies using public IPFS", any suggestions? cluster, network,... ?
4- It is better if we can set private clusters without VPN

1- acknowledged
2- this is in reference to removing the concept of 'regions' from current scope of work
3- see above for a few ideas I had - I think we should avoid using the name 'cluster' - even if we end up using ipfs-cluster to solve most problems here it represents an instantiation of ipfs-cluster and so will help the reader understand it is not exactly the same
4- I recommended we include our reasoning for not going with VPNs under rationale and alternatives in the pnet doc

[ehsan6sha]

@gitaaron for number 4: it adds another layer of potential failure to the system, and since Libp2p provides some features that we probably can come out good without VPN, I don't think we should add this complication.

[gitaaron]

Nothing to see here yet - just a template to add PR # to doc

[farhoud]

I think we can leave local pool out of this

[gitaaron]

I think we can leave local pool out of this

Can you clarify what you mean by 'local pool'?

[gitaaron]

We would like to rename 'pool' since the term is being used elsewhere. A few suggestions are:

• data-reserve
• data-reservoir
• library
• stockpile

[gitaaron]

A few ways to reduce scope -

1. Include 'free from conflicts due to real-time user updates' as a pre-condition. Create a separate design doc for 'data sharing' that covers the following story -
   "I want to share my data set with another device so that they both can read/update them in real-time."

   This could also be broken up into "file/folder" and "database" sharing.

2. Create a separate design doc for 'local' or 'colocated' data backups. By colocated I mean dedicating one or more hard-drives as backups to a working hard-drive on the same 'BOX'.

3. Link to https://github.com/functionland/docs/blob/main/docs/RFCs/pnet.md

4. Regions since this only covers personal usage

[gitaaron]

@ehsan6sha wrote -

1- mining: it will remain out of scope of dev team, as it is blockchain related
2- "probably not going to be used for end consumers (more for business)" I didn't catch what this means
3- "change wording of name ‘pool’ because it implies using public IPFS", any suggestions? cluster, network,... ?
4- It is better if we can set private clusters without VPN

1- acknowledged
2- this is in reference to removing the concept of 'regions' from current scope of work
3- see above for a few ideas I had - I think we should avoid using the name 'cluster' - even if we end up using ipfs-cluster to solve most problems here it represents an instantiation of ipfs-cluster and so will help the reader understand it is not exactly the same
4- I recommended we include our reasoning for not going with VPNs under rationale and alternatives in the pnet doc

[ehsan6sha]

@gitaaron for number 4: it adds another layer of potential failure to the system, and since Libp2p provides some features that we probably can come out good without VPN, I don't think we should add this complication.

[gitaaron]

Nothing to see here yet - just a template to add PR # to doc

[farhoud]

I think we can leave local pool out of this

[gitaaron]

I think we can leave local pool out of this

Can you clarify what you mean by 'local pool'?

[gitaaron]

We would like to rename 'pool' since the term is being used elsewhere. A few suggestions are:

• data-reserve
• data-reservoir
• library
• stockpile

[gitaaron]

A few ways to reduce scope -

1. Include 'free from conflicts due to real-time user updates' as a pre-condition. Create a separate design doc for 'data sharing' that covers the following story -
   "I want to share my data set with another device so that they both can read/update them in real-time."

   This could also be broken up into "file/folder" and "database" sharing.

2. Create a separate design doc for 'local' or 'colocated' data backups. By colocated I mean dedicating one or more hard-drives as backups to a working hard-drive on the same 'BOX'.

3. Link to https://github.com/functionland/docs/blob/main/docs/RFCs/pnet.md

4. Regions since this only covers personal usage

[gitaaron]

@ehsan6sha wrote -

1- mining: it will remain out of scope of dev team, as it is blockchain related
2- "probably not going to be used for end consumers (more for business)" I didn't catch what this means
3- "change wording of name ‘pool’ because it implies using public IPFS", any suggestions? cluster, network,... ?
4- It is better if we can set private clusters without VPN

1- acknowledged
2- this is in reference to removing the concept of 'regions' from current scope of work
3- see above for a few ideas I had - I think we should avoid using the name 'cluster' - even if we end up using ipfs-cluster to solve most problems here it represents an instantiation of ipfs-cluster and so will help the reader understand it is not exactly the same
4- I recommended we include our reasoning for not going with VPNs under rationale and alternatives in the pnet doc

[ehsan6sha]

@gitaaron for number 4: it adds another layer of potential failure to the system, and since Libp2p provides some features that we probably can come out good without VPN, I don't think we should add this complication.

[gitaaron]

Nothing to see here yet - just a template to add PR # to doc

[farhoud]

I think we can leave local pool out of this

[gitaaron]

I think we can leave local pool out of this

Can you clarify what you mean by 'local pool'?

[gitaaron]

We would like to rename 'pool' since the term is being used elsewhere. A few suggestions are:

• data-reserve
• data-reservoir
• library
• stockpile

[gitaaron]

A few ways to reduce scope -

1. Include 'free from conflicts due to real-time user updates' as a pre-condition. Create a separate design doc for 'data sharing' that covers the following story -
   "I want to share my data set with another device so that they both can read/update them in real-time."

   This could also be broken up into "file/folder" and "database" sharing.

2. Create a separate design doc for 'local' or 'colocated' data backups. By colocated I mean dedicating one or more hard-drives as backups to a working hard-drive on the same 'BOX'.

3. Link to https://github.com/functionland/docs/blob/main/docs/RFCs/pnet.md

4. Regions since this only covers personal usage

[gitaaron]

@ehsan6sha wrote -

1- mining: it will remain out of scope of dev team, as it is blockchain related
2- "probably not going to be used for end consumers (more for business)" I didn't catch what this means
3- "change wording of name ‘pool’ because it implies using public IPFS", any suggestions? cluster, network,... ?
4- It is better if we can set private clusters without VPN

1- acknowledged
2- this is in reference to removing the concept of 'regions' from current scope of work
3- see above for a few ideas I had - I think we should avoid using the name 'cluster' - even if we end up using ipfs-cluster to solve most problems here it represents an instantiation of ipfs-cluster and so will help the reader understand it is not exactly the same
4- I recommended we include our reasoning for not going with VPNs under rationale and alternatives in the pnet doc

[ehsan6sha]

@gitaaron for number 4: it adds another layer of potential failure to the system, and since Libp2p provides some features that we probably can come out good without VPN, I don't think we should add this complication.

[gitaaron]

Nothing to see here yet - just a template to add PR # to doc

[farhoud]

I think we can leave local pool out of this

[gitaaron]

I think we can leave local pool out of this

Can you clarify what you mean by 'local pool'?

[gitaaron]

We would like to rename 'pool' since the term is being used elsewhere. A few suggestions are:

• data-reserve
• data-reservoir
• library
• stockpile

[gitaaron]

A few ways to reduce scope -

1. Include 'free from conflicts due to real-time user updates' as a pre-condition. Create a separate design doc for 'data sharing' that covers the following story -
   "I want to share my data set with another device so that they both can read/update them in real-time."

   This could also be broken up into "file/folder" and "database" sharing.

2. Create a separate design doc for 'local' or 'colocated' data backups. By colocated I mean dedicating one or more hard-drives as backups to a working hard-drive on the same 'BOX'.

3. Link to https://github.com/functionland/docs/blob/main/docs/RFCs/pnet.md

4. Regions since this only covers personal usage

[gitaaron]

@ehsan6sha wrote -

1- mining: it will remain out of scope of dev team, as it is blockchain related
2- "probably not going to be used for end consumers (more for business)" I didn't catch what this means
3- "change wording of name ‘pool’ because it implies using public IPFS", any suggestions? cluster, network,... ?
4- It is better if we can set private clusters without VPN

1- acknowledged
2- this is in reference to removing the concept of 'regions' from current scope of work
3- see above for a few ideas I had - I think we should avoid using the name 'cluster' - even if we end up using ipfs-cluster to solve most problems here it represents an instantiation of ipfs-cluster and so will help the reader understand it is not exactly the same
4- I recommended we include our reasoning for not going with VPNs under rationale and alternatives in the pnet doc

[ehsan6sha]

@gitaaron for number 4: it adds another layer of potential failure to the system, and since Libp2p provides some features that we probably can come out good without VPN, I don't think we should add this complication.

[gitaaron]

Nothing to see here yet - just a template to add PR # to doc

[farhoud]

I think we can leave local pool out of this

[gitaaron]

I think we can leave local pool out of this

Can you clarify what you mean by 'local pool'?

[gitaaron]

We would like to rename 'pool' since the term is being used elsewhere. A few suggestions are:

• data-reserve
• data-reservoir
• library
• stockpile

[gitaaron]

A few ways to reduce scope -

1. Include 'free from conflicts due to real-time user updates' as a pre-condition. Create a separate design doc for 'data sharing' that covers the following story -
   "I want to share my data set with another device so that they both can read/update them in real-time."

   This could also be broken up into "file/folder" and "database" sharing.

2. Create a separate design doc for 'local' or 'colocated' data backups. By colocated I mean dedicating one or more hard-drives as backups to a working hard-drive on the same 'BOX'.

3. Link to https://github.com/functionland/docs/blob/main/docs/RFCs/pnet.md

4. Regions since this only covers personal usage

[gitaaron]

@ehsan6sha wrote -

1- mining: it will remain out of scope of dev team, as it is blockchain related
2- "probably not going to be used for end consumers (more for business)" I didn't catch what this means
3- "change wording of name ‘pool’ because it implies using public IPFS", any suggestions? cluster, network,... ?
4- It is better if we can set private clusters without VPN

1- acknowledged
2- this is in reference to removing the concept of 'regions' from current scope of work
3- see above for a few ideas I had - I think we should avoid using the name 'cluster' - even if we end up using ipfs-cluster to solve most problems here it represents an instantiation of ipfs-cluster and so will help the reader understand it is not exactly the same
4- I recommended we include our reasoning for not going with VPNs under rationale and alternatives in the pnet doc

[ehsan6sha]

@gitaaron for number 4: it adds another layer of potential failure to the system, and since Libp2p provides some features that we probably can come out good without VPN, I don't think we should add this complication.