Issue 116 found the mesh's proxy applies nothing to a request — host lookup, forward. Against
what the replaced ingress actually relies on, four capabilities are missing: authentication
(three dependents, each gating an admin surface with no login of its own), refusal scoped to a
path (one, a live incident mitigation), path-scoped routing with priority, and redirect.
Policy goes on the route rather than beside it. A proxy-side settings layer keyed by route name
would keep the grant literally clean, but then "what protects this route" is answered from two
files nothing keeps in step — and a route's protection is part of what a route is.
The set is closed at those four, so a fifth is an amendment and each addition is earned by a
dependent that exists. An open middleware surface was rejected: it recreates what is being
replaced, and narrowing one later is far harder than widening a closed one.
Where policy needs a credential the declaration names a secret and never carries the value,
which keeps the existing secret machinery the only thing holding credentials. Inlining a hash
was rejected as the first credential in a declaration — a precedent easier to set than withdraw.
This re-keys the routing table by host and path with priority, which follows from the decision
rather than being a separate one: two of the four need one host routed more than one way. Equal
priorities must resolve identically every time or the proxy stops being reproducible.
The record says how it is checked, including the negative case that rots quietly — a
declaration carrying a credential value rather than a reference must be refused, so the
rejected option cannot return by accident.
08-connectivity §3 names the record and gains the subsection; issue 116 gains amended-design.
Two things the report got wrong, and one it could not have found the way it looked.
Disclosure first: it carried a real hostname and an absolute node path, in a public
repository. Both are gone; the ingress, the modules and the routes are named by role, as the
rest of 04-ISSUES does.
The count was low. Basic authentication has three dependents in the catalogue, not one — the
key-value store's browser UI, a database web UI, and the ingress's own dashboard. All three
are credential-less admin surfaces whose only gate is a middleware the mesh's proxy lacks.
The earlier version read only the node's dynamic configuration directory, which cannot see
what modules declare as container labels; counting needs both sources, and the report now
says so.
Two gaps were missing entirely. Redirect rules: two live routes canonicalise a www name onto
its apex, they exist only on the node and not in the catalogue, and they fail silently rather
than erroring. And path-scoped routing with priority, which is the one that reorders the
issue: the table maps host to exactly one target, so a host cannot be routed two ways, and
the refusal rule matches a path on a host already routed elsewhere. Authentication and a
source filter would not make it expressible. Path scoping is a prerequisite, not a sibling.
Also corrected: the refusal rule was described as an address-scoped deny. It is an allow-list
holding a single documentation-range address — deny-everyone — so reading it as address-scoped
points at the wrong fix. And its severity was understated: its own header records it as
incident response closing an abused write primitive, which is not "a real exposure" but a live
mitigation.
The open questions now say plainly that they are design questions and the fix should not be
written before they are answered, and one is added: whether a declaration may carry a
credential at all.
Comparing route-proxy against what HAL's actual Traefik config does today,
not Traefik's general feature set, per the standing rule that the nox mesh
must do at minimum what the HAL mesh it replaces already does. Everything
else checked out even or better; these two are real, confirmed gaps —
RedisInsight has no login of its own and depends entirely on Traefik's
basicauth middleware, and the gitea-internal route depends on an IP-scoped
deny rule. Neither has any equivalent in route-proxy's single-lookup
request path.
jochen
jschoubben