Three corrections, two of them to things I wrote today.
026 is the serious one. Four modules mounted fourteen host paths nothing
declared — the mail spool, the databases, the object store's data. The
runtime creates those as root, so owner and mode go unapplied, and the
rule that keeps a directory holding data the mesh did not put there is
written in terms of declared directories. It reached the configuration
and missed the data. The cause was carrying compose files across: a
container shape that can express one gets filled in like one.
025 claimed nothing turns a tag into a digest. That is false, and the
answer was designed and built before I wrote it. A module names an
artifact, not an image, and `kind: upstream` mirrors somebody else's
image into the mesh's own registry, pinned by the digest it lands with.
The two-document split the issue described as the shape of a fix is the
design. Pinning twelve images by hand was treating the symptom, and left
them pointing at a public registry rather than the mesh's.
And the image store was written up as something the mesh does. It is an
ordinary module — considered for the substrate and removed, because the
test is whether the control plane needs it before its first instruction,
not whether it can grant itself one. So somebody's own registry is the
same module as the mesh's.
Recorded against phase 3, because the phase note said running them
needed images stocked and provisioners built — and missed that not one
of them named an image that exists. Sixty-four zeros where a digest
belongs, eighteen times, parsing and resolving perfectly.
The forge now runs: on a database another module provides, with a
password it did not choose and a connection string it could not have
written itself. First of these descriptions to be started rather than
planned, and it exercises the whole of the credential work.
What remains is the mechanism rather than the data. Nothing turns a tag
into a digest as part of the mesh's own work, so it was done by hand —
which is what the issue says a person should not be asked to do. Asking
a registry takes a second and pulls nothing, so the main argument for
leaving it undone is gone.
023 is fixed, so the design faults are gone and one concrete thing is
left: the realm provisioner does not exist. Its manifest named an image
nothing builds and no program backs, which has been removed — a manifest
describing a program nobody wrote is the same mistake as the credential
files that could never be read.
Keycloak's manifest now says what is true today, and the gap is loud: it
no longer claims to provide oidc-client, so a consumer asking for one is
refused by name at plan time instead of resolving cleanly and waiting
for a client nothing will create.
The provisioner should be written against a real Keycloak in the lab
rather than from the API documentation. The object store's took three
corrections that only a running server produced.
Tool servers — 56 modules, over half — were written up as the biggest
missing thing. They are expressible with what exists, and the first
framing was wrong in a way worth keeping: a module provides `tools` and
the session requires them does not work, because a requirement has one
answer and 56 modules offering tools would be 56 answers.
Turned around it fits exactly. The session provides `tool-host`; every
module offering tools requires it and contributes where its tools are.
Many-to-one is what `contributes` has always been, and the session
receives all of them in one file. Verified by resolving it rather than
by reading the code.
It only became possible today: until 022, several modules on one node
requiring the same thing was refused outright. Worth noting because it
means the credential fix bought more than credentials.
What remains is a decision about what a tool server is, which is work
rather than a missing shape.
The entry stays in the list rather than being deleted — a checklist that
quietly loses its biggest item reads as though nobody looked.
Both halves had one cause: the mesh knew something and did not say it.
Who a consumer is now comes from one derivation, sent to the provider in
its grant and to the consumer in its binding, so the two agree by
construction. The provisioners use the name they are given and refuse to
invent one, because a name of their own would create a login the
consumer could never guess while everything reported success.
Bound values reach the file that needs them through the symmetric twin
of the sealed placeholder — simpler, because they are not secret, so the
control plane fills them in and the host gains nothing.
The lab run meant to prove this failed in a way that looked like the fix
being wrong: rotation could not authenticate against a real database.
The cause was the suite rebuilding the control plane's image and not the
provisioner's, so an image built that minute ran against a provisioner
built the day before. That is 005's family and is recorded with the
issue, because the misleading part is worth more than the fix.
All three modules have manifests, all three parse, resolve and plan, and
none of them can start. Worth writing down before it reads as progress
or as failure, because it is neither.
The vocabulary held. Nothing in 3.1–3.3 needed a new shape — including
the mail system's several containers on a private network, which was the
one expected to break it. That was the question this phase was designed
to answer.
What did not hold was underneath: 022, now fixed, and 023, open. Both
are about credentials rather than about what a module can say.
The third fault was in the manifests, not the design: a secret declared
at a path named .env and read as one, when a sealed file holds a
password and nothing else. That is what a manifest checked only by a
parser buys, and it is why there are now two tests reading the manifests
on disk.
023 is the whole of what remains before the identity provider runs.
I wrote that a module cannot declare an action. It could — the parser
accepted one, and the refusal only came on the machine. The claim was
wrong in the direction that matters: it read as "the design prevents
this", when what prevented it was a check at the far end that nobody
would connect back to the manifest.
Health checks are still the gap most worth closing, but the shape of the
answer is different from what I wrote. An action is not available to a
module at all, so a health check needs a way to say ask this and expect
that without saying run this — closer to a listens entry than to an
action.
Also records the finding itself, because it is a recurring shape here
and not a one-off: a rule enforced only at the far end is enforced and
unusable.
Amends the credentials page, which said "every pair has its own
credential" and meant two machines. Built that way, it was wrong in a
way that only shows on a real node: a machine running several services
against one database server had one credential between them, so the
provider refused to plan at all and the consuming node quietly gave the
first module a credential and the rest nothing.
The page already argues the case against itself — one credential with
many holders is the first of the three faults it was written to remove.
It just drew the boundary at the machine.
Two modules on one node are as separate as two on different nodes, and
one login opening both is what this page exists to prevent. It is also
what makes withdrawal possible: one role per machine cannot say that
this module has lost its login and the others still have theirs.
022 turned out to have a silent half worth recording: the provider
refuses loudly and names the modules, which reads as a decision, while
the consuming node does not refuse at all. Three modules wanting one
database produce one need, so two of them get no credential file and
each starts and fails to authenticate with nothing saying why.
023 is what remained after fixing it. A consumer now gets its own
password, in whatever shape its configuration wants, and still cannot
connect: the user name is invented by the provisioner and recorded
nowhere in the mesh, and the host and port sit in a JSON binding that an
application reading KEY=value cannot use.
The asymmetry is backwards and the coverage document now says so. The
secret is the hard case, because the mesh must not be able to read it,
and the secret is the part that arrives. The host and port are ordinary
facts the mesh holds in the clear, and they are the ones stuck.
Keycloak, Gitea, Mailu and MinIO all parse and resolve and none of them
can start. This is what stands between the module set and a running one.
Every manifest in the system being replaced was read and every key
counted, then set against what the new one can express. Three findings
worth more than the table.
**The most-used key was already covered and I expected a gap.**
Depending on another module — 65 manifests, the commonest thing any of
them says — is a requirement naming a module, which already means that
module rather than anything providing the name.
**The largest real gap is tool servers: 56 modules, over half.** A
module can already run one; what is missing is anything saying it offers
tools. That is plausibly a provision rather than new vocabulary, which
would need nothing added — not yet decided, and recorded as undecided.
**The gap most worth closing is health, at seven modules.** The mesh
knows a container is running, which is not whether it answers, and this
project has paid for that distinction twice. An action with a verify is
exactly the right shape and may not arrive over the link, so a module
cannot declare one.
Two things are missing deliberately and say so: stage hooks, because the
link may not carry an action and a module needing setup ships a program;
and flavours, retired in favour of claims.
Config merging is missing and should stay missing. A mechanism that
understands TOML gets asked for YAML, then INI, which is how the thing
being replaced became unholdable.
Also records what the survey found that is not about coverage: manifests
that had stopped matching what was actually brokered, one fact derived
in two places giving two answers, and a live listing returning
credentials in plaintext.
The conversion's detail is operational and names machines, so it lives
in the mesh's knowledge base rather than in this repository:
`migration/where-service-data-lives` for where every service's data
actually sits, and `troubleshooting/db-password-frozen-at-first-init`
for the lockout. This document says the rule; those say the specifics.
The lockout is the finding worth carrying here, because it is worse than
the one this plan was already guarding against and it is likelier. A
database image consumes its password variable only when its data
directory is empty. Everything keeps data on a persistent directory, so
the role holds whatever password it was created with for ever;
regenerate the variable and the application moves on while the database
does not, permanently, because nothing reconciles it.
Eight modules are in that state today and work only because nobody has
regenerated their credential since their data directory was created.
It was already documented in the knowledge base and my survey had missed
it — found by searching, which is the argument for the knowledge base
existing.
Against a real ACME server the proxy orders, the challenge is answered
at the name on port 80 through the proxy itself, the authorisation goes
valid, finalisation is accepted, and the authority issues a certificate.
The client then posts to an empty URL to collect it, and never does.
Read from the authority's own log rather than inferred. Across one run
it issued two certificates and accepted finalise three times: the client
reaches issuance every attempt and fails at the same step after it.
Ruled out and recorded, so nobody repeats it: the directory is complete;
the authority's API certificate covers the address; the challenge path
works. A hand-written server config was suspected and was wrong —
replacing it with the server's own default, changing only the challenge
port, gives the identical error.
Filed rather than pursued because what remains is interop between two
libraries against a server that exists to be a test server, and may say
nothing about a real authority. What the mesh needed to show, it showed:
a routed name gets a certificate ordered from a configured authority,
and an unrouted one gets nothing — that second assertion passes.
Phase 1 closes with this one item partly open. Two of its four tasks
needed no code at all, the network shape was built, and the next thing
to learn comes from moving a module rather than a fourth lab run.
An earlier paragraph implied a secret becomes unrecoverable once
accepted. It does not. It is sealed to the node, which holds the private
half and writes the plaintext into the module's own file at 0600 — the
value is there, on the machine, as an ordinary file.
What does not exist is a way to ask the mesh what a secret is. That is
the property worth having and it is narrower than what was written.
The reason to capture the old system's environment first is simply that
adoption means supplying those values, not that they become
unrecoverable.
Nothing is rotated during the conversion. A service keeps the password
it is already using, because minting a new one is how a running service
stops being able to reach its own database mid-migration.
The mesh has both paths already: generate-and-seal for a new module,
accept-and-seal for an adopted one. Adoption needs the second, and it is
built.
Rotation becomes a separate act afterwards, once everything works — the
machinery is proven, and it is a thing to do deliberately rather than as
a side effect of moving a service between systems.
Records the step that has to come first and is easy to miss: read the
current environment out of the old system while it can still be read.
Once accepted, the mesh cannot show a secret back, and once the old
system is gone neither can that. A password nobody wrote down is a
service nobody can adopt.
Assumed throughout and stated nowhere — the wrong way round for the most
consequential fact about this component.
A board reachable only over the private network would sit inside the
boundary 0004 already calls the security boundary, and a login there
would guard a room whose door is inside the building. This one faces the
internet, so its login is a perimeter rather than defence in depth.
Which makes the identity provider the mesh's outermost gate. The board
presents the control plane, and the control plane's networked surfaces
can change the mesh (0035) — so whoever that provider admits can assign
modules, from anywhere. Written flatly because it is easy to arrive at
one reasonable step at a time and then be surprised by.
What follows is not the board's own design: who may log in is a decision
about the mesh rather than about an application; a public name needs a
certificate from an authority the world trusts, which is why that work
exists; and the provider going wrong in the permissive direction is a
mesh-wide exposure with no local symptom.
The command line is unaffected and is why this is tolerable — it
authenticates through nothing and answers to the machine's own login, so
the mesh stays operable by somebody standing at it whatever happens to
the gate. That is the property to protect if the rest is ever traded
away.
Third correction to one table today, found the same way as the other
two: by asking whether both halves of the test were answered, or only
the easy one.
0006 admits the registry because "it cannot grant itself a repository" —
true, and the second half. Nothing established that the control plane
needs one in order to run. Counted rather than argued: the bundle raises
twelve resources and no registry is among them. The registry arrives
afterwards as an ordinary module, which is exactly what the lab asserts.
0006 half-said this already, calling it "substrate by role and ordinary
by delivery, provisioned once there is a control plane to do it". A
member provisioned by the thing it supposedly precedes is not a member;
that phrase was carrying a contradiction rather than resolving one.
The registry is a closer call than the object store and the difference
is worth keeping: the control plane never touches an object store at
all, but it genuinely uses the registry. So the registry is a real
dependency of the mesh operating and not of the control plane starting —
and it is the second that the word means.
The substrate is now exactly what the bundle raises, which is the
strongest form the list can take: checkable by counting rather than by
reading an argument, and the two cannot drift.
The finding is not about substrates. A test with two conditions is a
test only when both are asked.
Closes the last open question about what the substrate contains. 0006
left an identity provider conditional — substrate only if the control
plane delegated authentication — and said the decision had not been
taken. It is now: it delegates to nothing.
The conditional was never about machines. A node proves itself with a
keypair it generated over a broker account issued at enrolment, and
declarations are verified by signature; none of that involves an
identity provider. It was only ever about whether a person signing in to
a mesh surface would be authenticated by something else.
So the substrate is three — a relational store, a message bus, an image
registry — and with 0028 having removed the object store, no member is
conditional and every one is there for the same reason.
It does not settle how a person signs in to a surface, deliberately.
What is settled is that whatever answers that is not something which
must exist before the mesh does, so it can be decided late or replaced —
which being substrate would have prevented.
The conversion method, recorded because it decides everything else and
was not written down.
The old control plane is stopped — provisioning, coordinator, syncs, the
pipeline, anything that decides or writes. The workloads it was managing
keep running, because nothing is managing them. The new mesh then takes
ownership one module at a time.
Nothing is ever unassigned in the old system. Unassigning is how it
removes things and removing is how data is lost; it is asked to stop
having opinions, never to take anything away.
Disabled rather than merely stopped, which is the part easy to get
wrong: those units are enabled, so a stop lasts until the next reboot. A
reboot mid-conversion would bring the old control plane back to
regenerate managed files underneath the new one — the one situation
where two systems really would fight over a machine.
A service left running with nothing managing it is the safe state: it
has its data, its configuration is on disk, and nothing will change
either. The risk in a conversion is in the managing, not the running.
Also records why taking ownership piecemeal is safe: the new host's
orphan removal is per-origin, so it only removes what it recorded
itself. Services it was never told about are not orphans to it.
0030, found by asking what the conversion actually needs rather than by
reviewing anything. The host deleted a directory and everything under it
when it stopped being declared — which happens when a module is
unassigned, or when a manifest is edited to move a data folder, which is
the exact operation this plan needs. A database's files, a mail spool.
The report said "removed".
A directory still holding something is now kept and said so. No flag and
nothing to remember: emptiness is the test, and it works because the
removal order was already right — the mesh's own contents are gone by
the time the directory is reached, so what remains is by definition
something nobody declared.
The plan now says data outranks its own ordering: copy, read back
through the service that owns it, and only then point anything at the
new location. Never move and then check.
And it records where this starts — the node holding all the production
data — with what that costs stated rather than argued with. Everything
proven so far was proven on machines that could be destroyed and raised
again. A scenario proves the mechanism, not the state on that machine.
Recorded because it is load-bearing and was not written down: moving
from the current system to this one is a person at a command line, not a
migration program.
What that removes is larger than what it adds. Nothing in this plan
needs an importer, a translation layer, a compatibility shim, or a way
of keeping two systems agreeing while both are live — each of which
somebody would otherwise reasonably build, use once, and maintain for a
year.
It also settles what "safe" means for the system being retired: a fix to
it must be safe on its own, because there is no careful rollout to
sequence it into. A change needing three steps in the right order is a
change that will be half-applied. That reversed a certificate default I
had chosen this morning.
Ordering needed no change for the third time running — resources apply
in the order declared and nothing sorts them — and is now asserted,
because sorting them for any sensible reason would have passed every
other test.
Separates ordering from readiness, which the task had run together: a
container started is not a container ready. Nothing waits, and what
needs something usable retries. That is deliberate and more robust than
start ordering, since a dependency can restart long after apply.
The network was the first thing in Phase 1 that genuinely needed
building, and the first that needed a decision: 0029 records why a shape
rather than an action, and the vocabulary is nine.
A session as a licence consumer needed no change either: the two
sessions are two modules, so the existing (node, module) binding already
names them apart. 14-model-access.md's "a step toward it and not it" is
true of a worker and not of a session, and the difference is that there
is one session per node rather than many per machine.
Records what stays open: the worker half of that gap is real and
unaffected, and belongs with 0003, which is unbuilt.
Two tasks in a row that were already possible. Both were written from
the design rather than from the code — the review's own finding arriving
in the plan it produced. The remaining Phase 1 items should be checked
against the code before being started rather than after.
An object-store provision, proven against a real store with seven
assertions.
The finding is worth more than the task: the control plane
special-cases nothing. provides, requires, contributes and grants are
name-agnostic, so asking for a bucket needed no change to the mesh at
all. What was missing was a provider and the last step on the machine —
"add an object-store provision" was never mesh work, and the breakdown
now says so rather than leaving the next person to rediscover it.
Named s3-bucket by 0027: the coupling is to the API, not the product,
because swapping one store for another does not break a consumer. A
database is the other case and names its engine.
Records the assertion a database does not need, because it is the one
that will be forgotten when somebody writes the next provider: one store
holds every bucket behind one endpoint, so isolation is a policy rather
than a property, and a policy granting everything passes every test that
only checks a consumer can reach its own bucket.
**0024 accepted.** Model access was decided, built, and proven in the
lab, and two design documents rest on it; only the status had never
moved. The gate is green again.
**The work breakdown rewritten.** It planned a decomposition of the
existing system in place — extract contexts, declared features, shrink
the shared library. That is not the work. A replacement is being built
beside it, and only the old Phase 0 survived contact with reality, so
the one document meant to say what happens next was describing a system
being retired.
Now ordered by what "modules move across one at a time until the old
registry is off" actually requires:
- Phase 0 is marked done against the twenty-two lab assertions, **and
carries its own limitation**: every module exercised was written to
test the mechanism, so the vocabulary was shaped by its own fixtures.
- Phase 1 is the vocabulary gaps found by asking what real modules
need — an object-store provision, a session as a licence consumer, a
network shape with ordering, public certificate issuance.
- Phase 2 is one module, then a week of running it, because the point of
going first is to find what Phase 1 missed.
- Phase 3 picks modules that each prove something the first did not; the
mail system is last because it is the one that may send work back into
the declaration language.
- Phase 4 is switching the registry off, named as a phase so it is not
mistaken for the goal.
Keeps the rules of engagement unchanged — they were about how work is
done, not what it is — with one addition: stop and ask before anything
that touches a machine outside the lab.
Adds a section on keeping the list true, since the document it replaces
was wrong for weeks and nothing said so. A claim here is counted, not
reasoned, and a phase is done when the lab says so.
First pass of a design review, done by reading documents against code
and against a raised mesh rather than against each other. Every error
below was invisible to a proofread.
**Statuses were stale, and nothing checked them.** Ten to-be documents
said `designed` while naming working, lab-proven code — several with a
*What was built* or *Raised, and observed* section. Added a
`status-vs-code` check: naming a file is a claim that the file
implements this, so a document that points at one has stopped being
merely designed. It failed on all ten before it passed, per the rule
this folder sets for its own checks.
**The bundle carries three images, not two.** 07 reasoned about which
substrate services go in and overlooked that the control plane is in
there too — it is what the substrate exists to start, and there is
nothing to fetch it with yet. Counted, not deduced.
**The bootstrap uses four shapes, not six.** It listed `file` and
`directory`, which substrate-first-node.lock never asks for. The claim
that mattered — nothing is blocked on the host — was true either way,
which is why the wrong count survived.
**The eight capabilities were documented nowhere.** Implemented in
internal/profile/detectors.go and enumerated in no document, including
the one about the host that detects them. A vocabulary modules write
against, readable only by reading the code. Now written down, with the
seat/graphical-session distinction that is wrong in both directions if
collapsed.
**MinIO swept out of the to-be layer** per 0028.
The gate now fails on one thing left deliberately: ADR 0024 is
`proposed` while two documents rest on it and the feature it decides is
built and lab-proven. Accepting a decision is not mine to do.
**0027 — provisions.** A module written against PostgreSQL could be
matched to a provider of SQL Server, resolve as satisfied, and fail on
its first query. The name said the role, so nothing distinguished
engines. Refusing on ambiguity could not help: with one provider of
each name nothing is ambiguous. Enforced at parse rather than
documented, because the old naming was the documentation.
**0028 — the substrate.** 0006 admits an object store on the grounds
that it cannot grant itself a bucket. That answers the second half of
the test and assumes the first: the control plane does not need one.
Verified — no S3 client in mesh-control, and internal/builder/registry.go
records the deliberate choice to put artifacts in the OCI registry as
content-addressed blobs. The row was inherited from the system being
replaced, where an object store distributed module tarballs, and was
never re-tested against the definition above it.
So an object store is an ordinary module, and a mesh with nothing
needing one runs none. Migrating it is module work, not substrate work.
0028 also states what 0006 left unsaid: a substrate service and a
module of the same product are different instances. The substrate is
raised from the bundle before any mesh exists, so it is not in the
module graph — a workload depending on it would depend on something the
graph cannot see, cannot rotate a credential for, and cannot move, and
would put workload data in the store the control plane keeps its own
state in.
Both records were found by reading code against design rather than
design against itself, which is the review that should have happened
sooner.
Answers the question 15 raised: a board showing many sessions leaves
one-per-node untouched, because each is still one conversation. Only
concurrent conversations with the same session would touch 0004.
Records soulstream and herdr as the prior art to draw from, and marks
it explicitly off the provisioning path so it stays a note rather than
becoming the work.
Settles the question 15 left open: the mesh session holds its own
memory in the mesh root, rather than assembling a view over the node
sessions. Memory follows the rule the rest of the design already uses —
the context root is the whole of what makes one session a different
agent, and memory is part of what makes it that agent.
The control-plane node is what makes this load-bearing rather than
tidy. Two sessions share that machine; if memory belonged to the
machine instead of the root they would share it too, and the mesh's
recollection would be indistinguishable from that node's own — the
collision 0026 exists to avoid, arriving through the back door.
Also corrects an error made writing it up: memory is NOT declared
state. The engram and tools are — the mesh says what they are and the
host writes them (0011). Memory is written by the session itself and
declared by nobody, so a mechanism that regenerates the root wholesale
would erase it on the next heartbeat, silently, while reporting
success. The root is not uniformly managed and which parts are has to
be explicit.
A session for the mesh itself, addressed as the mesh, differing from a
node's in exactly three things: the context it starts in, its engram,
and its licence binding. Not a new kind of agent — the same mechanism
pointed at a different root. Two implementations of one mechanism drift,
and the vocabulary collision 0001 exists to undo began exactly that way.
It runs on the control-plane node, and the reasoning is easy to get
backwards: not "the important agent on the important machine", but that
this node is already the one place excepted from "compromise of a node
is compromise of that node". Placed anywhere else it would create a
second such place.
It is an addition to per-node messaging and never a replacement. 0001
holds that losing the control plane costs change, not operation — and a
mesh whose only conversational surface lived there would lose the
ability to ask anything while every machine kept running perfectly.
Writing it up exposed that the node session's setup was never designed
at all. 0004 gives behaviour and stops: nothing said how a session
starts, where its context lives, or how a broker message becomes a
prompt. That gap was invisible until something had to be built *like* a
node session. 15-the-agent-session.md covers both as one mechanism.
It also makes "a consumer that is not a machine" undeferrable. The
control-plane node now hosts two sessions that must hold different
licences, and a per-machine binding cannot express that at all. Noted in
14-model-access.md against the gap it was already recorded as.
Also completes the to-be index, which stopped at 10 and omitted four
documents. Pre-existing broken ADR references in the older rows are left
alone rather than guessed at.
Retired in favour of the lab rather than repaired — that answers the
first open question. The second finding is the one that generalises:
"nothing runs it, and nothing reports that nothing runs it" is not a
fact about that harness, it is a fact about any suite too expensive to
run on every push. The replacement inherited the fault it was replacing.
Records the three rules that now hold, and what the fix taught twice:
the remedy rebuilt the symptom inside itself, and the code that counts
results passed every test while reading nothing.
A service is reached at <service>.<node>.internal, so what resolves is anything
under a node's name. The mesh writes the data and runs no daemon; two roles,
two claims, because systemd-resolved cannot serve a wildcard at all.
Both prohibitions were found by a machine rather than by reasoning: an address
systemd already held, and reading resolv.conf for upstreams that now point at
itself.
The field was called needs, beside secrets, and both were name-to-path holding
something secret. What separates them is whose, not how secret — so that is
what the name says now.
The connectivity design still said a hub cannot be filtered — a gap recorded in
the morning and closed in the afternoon, left standing as though it were
current. Worse than a stale date: it would send somebody away from something
that works.
`restart-on` was described nowhere, including the part added today that lets a
service reflect a file another module put on the machine. A rule the host
enforces and no document mentions is a rule nobody can rely on.
And nine of fifteen design documents claimed an `updated:` older than their last
change, some by a week. That field is what cross-cutting views are generated
from, so it is not decoration.
A resolver takes over /etc/resolv.conf, which is a singular resource — ADR 0009
lists it in the table beside the seat and pid 1. So choosing between resolved,
dnsmasq and unbound is assigning a module, per machine, and the mesh refuses
two rather than letting them fight over the file.
Recorded because it was treated as an open question two days after being
decided, which is the argument for that table being a table.
Found by a container failing to resolve a name every machine could: a container
gets its own hosts file holding only its own hostname, and on the machine it
always worked, which is what made it easy to miss.
Declared containers are given the names. A container somebody starts by hand is
not the mesh's to configure — which is a second, different reason to want a
resolver, recorded beside the first rather than folded into it.
Asked whether a machine that drops off needs re-adopting: it does not, nothing
expires, and the only thing that forces re-enrolment is losing its own key.
The gap was the twenty or thirty seconds after a resume in which a node
believes it is in a mesh it has left — recovering on its own, which made it a
quality gap rather than a fault, and still a machine waiting to be told
something it already knew.
It meant failed-or-refused, so the question this record says must not be lost
was answerable only for the machines that broke. Out of date, never told, and
not worked out are kept apart: the remedy is the same push and they read
differently to whoever is looking.
Their subject matter has been built and proven for days and their frontmatter
still said code: [] — which is what the cross-cutting view is generated from,
so it was claiming nothing existed for the substrate, the node lifecycle and
delivery.
One reading answered three ways, holding nothing and touching no context's
store — which is the constraint the whole document is about, and the thing the
board being replaced gets wrong.
Rotation and the provisioner contract; model access as a provision answered by
a record, with ADR 0024's other two gaps left as gaps; exposure, which closes
the open question about revoking a route; and the delivery loop, which closes
the gap ADR 0010 left when it replaced a pipeline with a comparison.
The broker's fingerprint travels with its credential, and the machine's
filesystem does not travel at all — it runs in a container, which is the
arrangement working rather than a limitation to route around.
Found by the firewall: every packet filtered as declared, and the machine
reported as not doing what it was told, because the unit that loaded the rules
had finished. Stated as a gap rather than worked around silently.
Otherwise it succeeds into a state its verify rejects, and the host's report is
accurate and names nothing. Recorded where the vocabulary is described, because
it is a rule about writing an action rather than about one action.
A hub needs its overlay port open and a node that is not a hub does not, and
they are the same module — so listens, a static manifest field, cannot express
it while the overlay module's resources are computed per node. Written down
rather than left as an oversight for whoever first puts a firewall on a hub.
Issue 014: the node's serving key was stored in the host's own encoding, so
every check that reads the file passed and no server could start. Same shape as
013 — two halves of one mechanism designed separately, each correct about its
own half. Where a file exists so a third party can read it, the format is the
interface.
Issue 003 is answered in both halves: manifests are parsed strictly, and a
module says what it listens on and from where rather than carrying a key
nothing reads. The design records what was built and how each part is checked.
Issue 013 is new, found by reading while writing the first module that has
both a computed file and a service that needs it. The file arrived second.
It failed, then the next reconcile fixed it, which is why nothing caught it.
Three additions, all written by trying to write a real database module
and finding out what could not be said.
A module may mirror an image it did not write. Naming an upstream
reference directly needs every machine to reach a public registry and
pins to a tag somebody else can move.
A module may need a secret of its own — a superuser password is not FOR
anybody, so the mechanism that hands credentials to consumers cannot
express it. Per node, so three machines have three passwords.
And the provisioner watches, which is what lets it be a module rather
than a binary somebody places. It polls rather than watching the
filesystem, because the host writes atomically and a watch on a replaced
path silently stops working.
One assignment now gets a working database provider: two directories, two
pinned containers, a sealed password and the grants manifest.
A page nobody had thought to ask for turns out to be the one a person
opens first: what is not doing what it was told. Recorded with the order
that matters — broken, then quiet, then out of date — because a page
leading with the last would bury the first.
And refused stays distinct from failed all the way to the page. They are
fixed in different places, so one word for both sends half its readers to
the wrong one.
Two additions to the module-repository design, both from building it.
A build machine has its own credential and it is not a node's: read the
build queue, write the mesh exchange, nothing else. A node's queue
carries that node's declarations.
The answer goes through the exchange and never the default one, because
permission there is per exchange rather than per queue — anything allowed
to use it can publish into any node's queue. The price is that every
asker sees every result and filters by correlation, which is cheap
against a builder never needing that permission.
And every result is kept, failures included, because one that leaves no
trace is indistinguishable from a build nobody asked for. That is what a
builds view reads; the board page is corrected to say so.
jschoubben