Both lines of work numbered from the same point, so four decision records and one design
document existed twice with different content. The trunk keeps its numbers and this branch
yields — the only rule that scales, because the trunk's are already cited by what merged
before them.
0117 the bus is the only broker -> 0125
0118 a module declares its own seats -> 0126
0119 amqp is a provision, not the bus -> 0127
0120 the mesh bus is required -> 0128
0123 a seat carries its role's protocol -> 0129
0124 the predecessor is ending -> 0130
design 29, what a module declares -> design 32
Applied to the code repositories too, because a stale reference is worse when numbers
collide than when they dangle: the reader lands on a real record that decided something
else.
Two reconciliations the merge forced, both real:
**0110 was marked wholly superseded and was not.** Its successor says in as many words that
everything 0110 decided about what a seat *is* stands untouched — and two records that
landed on the trunk rest on exactly that part. So it is accepted again, extended rather than
replaced, with a note saying which of its claims moved and where.
**A seat's protocol becomes columns, not fields.** The trunk moved the seat set out of
compiled code into a table the controller owns. This branch had added what a role accepts,
emits and serves to the Go slice. The decision is unaffected and the mechanism is better for
it: giving a role a protocol is now a write rather than a rebuild, which is the trunk's own
argument applied to what this branch added.
One check still fails and it fails on main too: a record resting on ADR 0112 while that is
still 'proposed'. Left alone — it is not this merge's to answer.
Task 3.2. ADR 0074's model is untouched — floor plus capabilities, partial
implementations legitimate, identity from the credential, dedup on
x-event-id, conformance as executable fixtures. The transport beneath it is
rewritten: exchanges and queues become subjects and streams.
Statements marked *verified* were checked against a running server while
the runtime's client was written, not reasoned from documentation. Three
of them are things the specification would otherwise have got wrong:
- the payload is the body alone, with metadata in NATS headers; an
implementation that nested the whole envelope would agree with nobody
- a durable name may not contain a dot, while the ack subject joins two
names with one — conflating them looks right in a permission list and is
refused as a consumer name
- a certificate must carry a name the bus is dialled by, because the NATS
client has no hook to replace hostname verification the way pinning did
on AMQP
And one limitation lifts: a module may now call another's tool. Issue 049
recorded that a scoped account could not declare the reply queue a caller
needs, and ADR 0095 routed every ask through the control plane because of
it. Per-account inbox prefixes plus allow_responses replace that. ADR 0095
is not reversed — the control plane is still how a person asks — but
module-to-module calling stops being a question about capability and
becomes one about policy, which `uses` already answers.
PR #133 landed a different 0115 while this branch was open. The bus record
is now 0116, with every citation in designs 19, 25, 28 and the index
following it.
Note: cycle.py and records.py both fail on main as merged, on that record —
nothing cites it, and it rests on 0112, which is still proposed. Both
pre-date this branch and are left for their own change.
The NATS change was recorded as one undivided item, which hid three gaps:
a mesh already running had no adoption path, the protocol specification did
not know its transport was being replaced, and nothing was runnable until
everything was. Dividing it is what surfaced them.
Decisions were the one link the cycle checks skipped, and measuring found 19 of 70 records
orphaned — the credential flow and the module-runtime cluster among them, which is how a
stale premise about a settled decision survived in working memory. cycle.py now refuses an
accepted record nothing cites; the 19 got true homes (design frontmatter, the playbook that
implements 0021, META for the process records). The overview names the practice: spec-driven
development with provenance.
https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6qtiYU3P9jk3pnAXyAFyx
Settles the design repository now that the self-upgrade build is on main:
- Records the two decisions that shipped without a record — ADR 0077 (the
controller/foundation/node vocabulary) and ADR 0078 (the store and broker are
ordinary modules); accepts ADR 0075 and 0076, which shipped work rests on.
- Fills issue 051's amended-design and wires ADR 0078 into 07-the-foundation.
- Sweeps the repo rename (mesh-control -> mesh-controller) into the mutable docs
now that the forge repo is renamed; updates the glossary note and repos.md.
- Fixes the six broken links from the design-doc renames, indexes the glossary,
regenerates the decisions reading order.
Both checks (records.py, index.py) are green. Statuses stay honest: the build is
on main and lab-proven but not deployed as the production mesh, so the to-be docs
remain in-progress and the as-is layer (the hal mesh) is unchanged — graduation
to implemented + as-is belongs to deployment, not merge.
https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6qtiYU3P9jk3pnAXyAFyx
"control plane" -> controller and "substrate" -> foundation throughout
03-DESIGN, 00-META and the README, with 06-the-control-plane.md and
07-the-substrate.md renamed to 06-the-controller.md and 07-the-foundation.md.
The immutable 02-DECISIONS records keep their original wording (and links to
them are unchanged) — a term retired here may still appear there, which the
glossary explains how to read.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6qtiYU3P9jk3pnAXyAFyx
The protocol spec claimed the envelope and grant drifted across implementations.
Inspection showed the wire agrees — envelope required headers match, the two
optional ones are legitimately optional, and the grant wire (the contributions
file) is identical on both sides. The disagreement was in dead types, now removed.
So phase 1's 'make them agree' work is done by deletion and correction. What
remains is a conformance fixture as prevention — pinning the envelope and the
contributions file so a future change that breaks agreement fails a test — and a
full per-capability suite is deferred until a third language actually needs it.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6qtiYU3P9jk3pnAXyAFyx
A floor every implementation needs and three capabilities independent of each
other, so an SDK can implement the floor and events and be a real thing rather
than an unfinished one.
Written as a specification, which means it says what is required rather than how
anything is arranged — and says plainly where it describes behaviour that is not
yet true. Three places it does:
x-causation-id and x-schema are specified and emitted by nothing; the Go side
writes four headers and the TypeScript side declares six. A module may serve
tools and may not call them, because a caller needs a reply queue its account may
not declare. And the two implementations disagree about what a grant carries — in
TypeScript consumer is the module, in Go it is the node and the module is From.
One word, two meanings, in two halves of one mesh.
Naming those in the specification rather than leaving them for conformance to
discover, because a specification that only described what already works would
have nothing to say about the things most likely to break.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6qtiYU3P9jk3pnAXyAFyx
jschoubben