Found preparing the control-node's convergence. Reach is settled independently by
the filter, the proxy's names and the certificate authority, so "this must not be
public" cannot be written and a public certificate is obtained regardless. And the
forward chain allows two hardcoded ranges plus a typed list, though the mesh
already knows which networks exist because its own modules declared them — a range
wide enough to keep four of them would have forwarded two predecessor leftovers too.
One container restarted 2286 times over five days while the mesh reported the machine as doing what it
was told. Its overlay address was five days out of date: the host compares a container by a digest of
its spec, and the mesh's names were not in it, so a container whose image and files never changed was
left alone holding a name that no longer resolved. Forty-eight others were current only because
something else had recreated them.
The same fault as issue 045, in the field that was left out. Resolved by putting the names in the
digest.
0120 was already accepted; what failed the check was that it rests on 0112, still marked proposed —
and so do four designs. The decision stands: a definition names no node, no mesh and no host path, and
everything a module needs is a requirement the mesh resolves.
Accepting it makes the gap visible rather than hiding it, so issue 134 states it. 0112 says how it is
checked — 'a catalogue test finds no domain name in any definition value' — and there is no such test.
Asked by hand: seven modules name this installation in a value the mesh acts on, and eight mention a
public name in prose nothing reads. The two are not the same fault and the fixes differ, which is why
the issue separates them rather than counting to fifteen.
Two faults in 0133, both caught on review. It put the declaration on a container — one resource kind
the host applies — so every author would restate the machine's arrangement and a module's own
lifecycle would be tied to how its artifact happens to run. A module declares entrypoints for its
tools and its provisioner; preparing its state is the same vocabulary and nothing about a runtime.
And it derived the scope from the machine, which the facts already answer: a consumer is a module on
a machine (issue 022, migration 0015), so what the mesh provisions is per consumer. A module on three
machines has three databases, there is no shared state to race over, and the lock obligation 0133
invented was for a situation the mesh does not produce. The level question HAL answered with stages
dissolves — the scope of preparation is the scope of the state, and the mesh knows it.
0133 keeps its reasoning and gains a pointer; design 32 and issue 133 name the live record.
0133 — a module owns its migrations and the mesh owns when they run. A container declares what must
run before it; the mesh derives the gated step from the resource it precedes, so the image, the
environment and the credentials come from the one place they are described. The module owns the SQL,
the dialect and the lock; the mesh owns the moment and refuses to start a version whose step failed.
Per node, with no level: a step that ran once somewhere leaves every other machine ungated, and
'once, mesh-wide' is what holding a seat already means.
0134 — the pipeline is observable from a merge to an artifact and goes dark at the machine. What a
node now runs, and what it refused, become facts under the control plane's own seat, emitted when
what a machine runs changes rather than on every convergence pass.
Design 32's lifecycle carries both; issue 133 points at them as what ends the matter it opened.
The mesh replaced its own control plane with a build carrying a migration, applied none of it, and
then recorded no build for three quarters of an hour while saying everything was fine. ADR 0052
already prescribes the shape — a run-once step that gates the server — and the control plane was the
one module that did not use it.
Nine modules could not be rebuilt: their record named the repository and no directory, so every
build looked for a manifest at a repository root that has never had one. Resolved by mesh-controller
— `module add` takes the directory and the forge, and the rule is checked rather than described.
The AMQP transport is gone from the control plane and the hosts (mesh-controller #112,
mesh-host #39). On the way: no build had ever recorded its bases, so every bases-first order
walked an empty graph; the builder now reports what it was handed and the graph is read from
builds (mesh-controller #113/#114). Issue 131 is resolved by the forge module's merge event,
the control plane following it, and those edges.
Correcting design 26 to match what the merged code does, and fixing issue 112's
status, which used a word the vocabulary does not have.
A claim on a seat the manifest does not itself declare is refused at registration
rather than by the parser. A module may hold a seat another module declared —
that is why ADR 0126 has a caller name the seat and not its provider — so whether
the name exists is a fact about the whole catalogue.
And a declared seat may promise nothing. That is a marker seat, and most
node-scoped seats are markers: which module is this machine's packet filter. ADR
0126's "a declared seat carries a protocol" says what a holder must satisfy, not
that every seat offers something.
`records.py` still fails on ADR 0120 resting on a proposed ADR 0112, which is not
this branch's and not mine to decide.
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.
Every module named its events the way the old bus spelled a routing key, so on the
new bus every cross-module subscription pointed at a namespace nobody publishes to.
Nothing failed — the services started and none of them reacted. Converted, and the
rule now has checks at both scales: at registration for one manifest, and as a test
across the whole catalogue where a consumed event's emitter is present.
It was larger than the report said, in two directions nobody had looked. Forty-three
files of module code pass the event name at runtime, so the code mattered as much as
the manifests. And both clients had to learn the mapping — without that, converting
the modules would have broken the mesh that is actually running, which is the
opposite of what fixing this was for.
Design 29 gained three things it did not say: what a wildcard is (`*` for one name,
`**` for the rest, spelled the mesh's way and derived to each bus's own), that an
event about a role belongs on the seat and why that is not yet possible, and how the
rule is checked — because "a subscription that matches nothing is silence" is exactly
why nobody noticed thirty-seven manifests being wrong the same way.
4.2 and 4.3 are unblocked. The catch-up half of 4.5 is not: it is a decision, and it
narrowed rather than closed. It cannot be a reply to a module's inbox, because that
needs the blanket grant design 25 §4 refuses.
The controller's inbound is through a seam with both transports behind it, and
the store window is now the server's rather than the controller's memory. Seven
claims about that were asked of a running server rather than reasoned.
Wiring the controller's own subscription is what found issue 127: every event
name in the catalogue is still written the way a routing key is, so design 29's
derivation turns a consumer's declaration into a subject no emitter publishes.
Thirty-seven manifests, one that cannot be composed at all. It fails on the first
mesh raised on the new bus and not before, which is why nothing had caught it —
the conformance fixtures pin one emitter against one subject, and both halves of
that pair are correct.
The node-facing flows are unaffected: those subjects are the mesh's own and
derive from nothing a module declares.
125: a hold is not a line in the apply report — sixteen resources held
for an untaken module while four surfaces reported success, and the
operator stopped the edge's predecessor on their word (the route-proxy
flip outage). 126: a changed volume path neither recreates a running
container nor warns, and a roll-out upgrade policy makes a build a
deployment — together they turned a data-path migration into a forge
outage (the /var/lib move). Filed as 119/121 in the novox session
before syncing; renumbered past the other session's 119-124.
Not every host path names this machine. A system file the mesh owns is at that path on every machine
of the kind — the path is the fact. The operator's shared data is already answered as an access. A
path inside a container is the software's contract. What is left, and what a node's default layout
would replace, is 514: a module's own data, and what the mesh writes for that module.
Documents the reservation model as the records already have it — a root per node, one directory per
assignment, a placement for adopted data — and the three things nothing states: where the root comes
from, what sits beneath it, and the order the 514 are retired in.
Stops there deliberately. Changing where a definition looks without moving the data does not fail: the
mesh creates the directory, the container starts, the service comes up empty. Retiring these is a data
migration with a verification step, module by module, and belongs with whoever can see the machine.
A path inside a container is not a fact about the machine — /run/secrets and the directory a server
keeps its data in are the software's own contract, true in any mesh that runs it. Only the host side
of a mount names where it landed.
The first sweep matched path-shaped strings, so it counted both halves of every mount and every
in-container location a value mentioned: 798. Counted by role — directory and file resources, the
host side of mounts, accesses, and the targets of binds, grants, receives and secrets — it is 698
across 70 definitions.
The five modules this report first named were what a first look found. A sweep of all 71: 49 public
domains across 26, the node's own name 58 times across 19, a routable IP 12 times in one, 798
absolute paths across 70 (issue 119's number, grown), and no email addresses at all.
The sharpest case is not a domain: a mail module states the node's public IPv4 as the address it
trusts a real-IP header from, so a node that moves or gains a second address stops attributing mail
correctly, silently. Two upstream resolvers are excluded deliberately — naming a public DNS service
is a policy default, true of any mesh, not a fact about this one.
The object store derives each consumer's bucket from the login the mesh minted, and never reads the
one a definition named. The consumer still has to tell its own software which bucket to use, and has
no way to be told: bound values come from the provider's serves, which is a literal block identical
for every consumer, and a provisioner returns nothing. So all three consumers wrote the answer down
by hand and one of them wrote the predecessor's bucket — a key scoped to one bucket and software
asking for another, which reads like a credential fault and is not one.
Records the general shape: any interface where the provider names the resource forces the consumer to
reproduce the provider's rule, kept in agreement by hand and checked by nothing.
Three wordings disagree, and the confusion is the damage: the glossary defines artifact as an OCI
image while the build vocabulary already names four kinds in use, two of which are not images; the
image registry's seat is named after its job while ADR 0079 names foundation seats after their servers
and ADR 0109 names package seats after their ecosystem; and prose that says 'the module's image' reads
as though a module were an image.
Records the question the naming hides: ADR 0075 keeps two provisions because packages and images are
two protocols, and already allows the forge to provide the artifact store. The second implementation
rests on a bootstrap argument, and the forge has the same upstream-server shape the store and broker
have, which ADR 0078 raises as plumbing and adopts in place.
Step 4 claimed the forge cannot exist as a container before the builder has built its image. The
forge's server is an upstream public image pinned by digest; only its runtime sidecar is built. The
store and the broker have the same shape, and ADR 0078 raises both at genesis as plumbing and adopts
them in place — so the forge can be raised the same way and serve git, packages and OCI before
anything is built.
What survives: a grant is minted by the provider's runtime sidecar, which is built, so the question
is whether raise-service, grant, build-sidecar simply works. Sequencing inside the mesh, not images.
The wrong version came from taking a record's bootstrap argument at face value instead of comparing it
to how the store and broker are raised — one command away in the manifests.
Two things were treated as one. The mesh's own artifact store holds the store seat and is internal by
design — reached by name over the overlay, no accounts, ADR 0082. Serving a registry publicly is a
service the mesh can host: a module with its own name, accounts and storage, like anything else it
runs for somebody. The conversion this report was written beside gave the seat holder a second public
door over the same filesystem, which is neither.
Keeps the original issue whole — no garbage collection, and the settings a routine needs are not
enabled — drops the two-door complication, and sharpens one thing: deletion on the only door is
deletion on a door with no accounts, which the predecessor kept behind its authenticated one.
Asked whether merging the three reviewed changes would set a precedent. It would not: five modules
already carry a name belonging to this one mesh — a workflow module stating its host, protocol and
absolute webhook URL, and two carrying a full clone URL for a repository on the mesh's own forge.
That changes what the issue is for. There is no version of this catalogue today that does not name
the mesh it was written in, so refusing three changes buys nothing and a mechanism is the only thing
that removes any of them. The three were merged on that reading, each PR saying so.
Three open module changes independently wrote one mesh's names into the catalogue — two literal
public URLs, because the software generates absolute URLs behind a proxy, and one bucket renamed to
match what exists here. None was careless: the mesh composes <label>.<public-domain> for the proxy
and never hands it back to the module that asked for the route, and no interpolation yields a public
name, so writing the answer down is the only expressible option.
Files it rather than blocking the three, because the fix is a mechanism and the instances are live
needs. The cost is stated: a second mesh installing the identity provider gets the first mesh's
hostname, and nothing distinguishes a literal domain from a version number.
Asked first whether the seats change fixed this in passing, since it landed the same day and
touches both manifests the report names. It did not: the seat's holder is consulted only where
several nodes provide the thing, and with none providing it resolution refuses outright. Genesis
has no exemption — the unchecked first pass exists to learn what each node offers, and a
declaration is never built from it.
Records the part that did change: the three tests left failing on purpose were deleted by the
controller's seats PR and replaced with passing seat-based ones, so the gap is invisible again.
Adds the resolver to located-in, since that is where the refusal is.
Renumbered from 117, which is taken on main by 'a module's own code is a container in one record
and a process in another' — two reports claimed the same number and git would not have said so.
Scrubbed the node's name and a real registry path; this repository is public.
Keeps 118: the other claimant to this number is on main as issue 119, where ADR 0112 points.
Scrubbed the service's public name — this repository is public — and completed the report's
frontmatter with the fixed-by and amended-design keys every other report carries.
The harness compares against its own memory, so a backend that loses
what was provisioned (the cache's ACL users on a server restart) is
never provisioned again, silently.
jschoubben
mesh-admin
jochen