From 2344bfb69bc84c23ac9065bac2c1288604d4d18a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: jochen <jschoubben@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2026 16:10:38 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?ADR=200191:=20domains=20are=20a=20node's=20?=
 =?UTF-8?q?=E2=80=94=20one=20internal,=20one=20or=20more=20public;=20the?=
 =?UTF-8?q?=20roster=20is=20the=20machines?=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

---
 ...resolver-holds-only-the-meshs-own-names.md | 19 ++++++++++---------
 03-DESIGN/01-to-be/08-connectivity.md         |  9 ++++-----
 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/02-DECISIONS/0191-the-meshs-resolver-holds-only-the-meshs-own-names.md b/02-DECISIONS/0191-the-meshs-resolver-holds-only-the-meshs-own-names.md
index f1d2b8e..be16cb4 100644
--- a/02-DECISIONS/0191-the-meshs-resolver-holds-only-the-meshs-own-names.md
+++ b/02-DECISIONS/0191-the-meshs-resolver-holds-only-the-meshs-own-names.md
@@ -14,11 +14,12 @@ supersedes-in-part:
 > **Progressive insight — 2026-10-03.** The first implementation told the mesh's names from public
 > ones by their spelling — a name ending in the mesh suffix — and this record said so: the Decision
 > read *"only names under its own suffix"*, and the roster check *"every name the roster carries ends
-> in the mesh suffix"*. The mesh needs no such test: it composes both names of every route itself,
-> `name` from the node's public domain and `internal-name` from its own domain under the serving node
-> (ADR 0151), and publishes the second. Which names are its own is known from where each was
-> composed. Both sentences now say that; what was decided — a public name is never given a private
-> answer — is unchanged.
+> in the mesh suffix"*. The mesh needs no such test, nor any per-route name: domains are a node's. A
+> node has **one internal domain**, `<node>.internal`, and every route on it is a name under that domain
+> (ADR 0151), answered by one wildcard per node; a node has **one or more public domains**, which public
+> DNS answers. So the mesh's resolver holds the nodes' internal domains and nothing else, and the roster
+> carries the machines and no routed name. Both sentences now say that; what was decided — a public
+> name is never given a private answer — is unchanged.
 
 ## Context
 
@@ -72,8 +73,8 @@ every public name the mesh serves, is forwarded and resolves publicly. Chosen.
 
 ## Decision
 
-**The mesh publishes into internal resolution only the names it composes for itself** — a
-machine's name, and each route's `internal-name`, never a route's public `name`. A machine's name,
+**The mesh's resolver holds each node's internal domain and nothing else** — `<node>.internal` and
+everything under it, at that node's private address. A machine's name,
 and through it every `<label>.<node>.internal`, resolve to that machine's private address. **A public
 name is never given a private answer by the mesh**: it resolves through public DNS to the public
 address, from members and non-members alike.
@@ -103,8 +104,8 @@ reachability — the lab — certifies its internal names and has no public name
 
 **How each is checked:**
 
-- **The roster:** the controller's catalogue tests assert that the names served are routes'
-  internal names and that no route's public name is among them — one published fails the build.
+- **The roster:** the controller's tests assert that the roster names the machines and nothing
+  else — a routed name in it, public or internal, fails the build.
 - **On a machine:** asking the machine's resolver for a public name the mesh serves returns the
   public address, and asking it for that route's internal name returns the private one. Asked from a
   non-member on a LAN the resolver answers, the first must hold as well.
diff --git a/03-DESIGN/01-to-be/08-connectivity.md b/03-DESIGN/01-to-be/08-connectivity.md
index 0b2dbde..9b0ae5d 100644
--- a/03-DESIGN/01-to-be/08-connectivity.md
+++ b/03-DESIGN/01-to-be/08-connectivity.md
@@ -425,16 +425,15 @@ the cost of not seeing it is inventing a mechanism that already exists.
 
 ### The mesh resolves only its own names; a public name resolves publicly
 
-**The mesh's resolver holds the names the mesh composes for itself and nothing else** — every
-machine's name, and every route's internal name `<label>.<node>.internal`
+**The mesh's resolver holds each node's internal domain and nothing else** — `<node>.internal` and
+everything under it, so every route's internal name `<label>.<node>.internal` with no line of its own
 ([ADR 0151](../../02-DECISIONS/0151-a-routes-internal-name-is-composed-under-the-node-that-serves-it.md)).
-**A public name the mesh serves is never given a private answer**: it is forwarded and resolves to the
+**A node's public domains — one or more — are never given a private answer**: it is forwarded and resolves to the
 public address, from a member and from anything else the resolver answers — a resolver may serve a
 machine's LAN, and a phone on that LAN must get the address it can reach
 ([ADR 0191](../../02-DECISIONS/0191-the-meshs-resolver-holds-only-the-meshs-own-names.md)). Inside the
 mesh, a routed service is reached, and certified by the internal authority, under its internal name.
-*Checked by the controller's catalogue tests — the names served are routes' internal names, and no
-route's public name is among them —
+*Checked by the controller's tests — the roster names the machines and no routed name —
 and on a machine by asking its resolver for a public name the mesh serves: the answer is the public
 address.*