Files
hq/01-RESEARCH/006-mesh-from-scratch/00-overview.md
T
jschoubben 00b8398d07 skeleton: hal-agent -> hal-host, and the two gaps the questions found
Agent is a first-class concept here — a participant, some of whom are
human, holding identity and memory. Using it for the tier-0 node binary
put both meanings in one document: hal-agent at tier 0, agents at tier 2.
That is the anatomy-naming failure again, an evocative domain word
pointing at infrastructure, and how-we-build 4 exists to catch it.

ADR 0015's own title supplies the fix: the mesh brokers, nodes host,
agents think. So the control plane brokers (hal-mesh), the tier-0 binary
hosts (hal-host), the participant thinks (agents, untouched). hal-node was
rejected — Node is the inventory aggregate, the binary is what runs on it.
Recorded in the document as a near-miss rather than quietly corrected.

Tiers now explained before the tree, as a boot narrative, with the point
they were carrying made explicit: dependencies point only downward, that
is the whole bootstrap answer, and the current mesh violates it — the
database is a module, modules come from the pipeline, the pipeline needs
the database.

Connectivity gains the part that was missing. Naming a context says who
decides, not who runs it: overlay membership is tier 0 in the host, policy
is tier 2, machinery is tier 4 modules. And the host's link to the control
plane deliberately does not run over the overlay, or the overlay would
have to exist before a node could be told how to join it.

'tier' is this document's coinage and did not land on first reading; that
is now an open question rather than settled vocabulary.
2026-08-23 20:32:20 +02:00

81 lines
4.4 KiB
Markdown

---
status: active
initiated: 2026-08-23
touches:
- 02-DECISIONS/0015-mesh-brokers-nodes-host-agents-think.md
- 02-DECISIONS/0017-modules-outside-the-core-are-grouped-by-domain.md
- 03-DESIGN/00-as-is/00-overview.md
- 03-DESIGN/01-to-be/00-work-breakdown.md
became: []
---
# 006 — The mesh designed from nothing
## What is being investigated
What the mesh would look like if it were laid out today, with the requirements known and none
of the accumulated shape — expressed as a **skeleton**: repositories at the root, modules
inside them, and whatever turns out to be the right leaf unit below that.
The deliverable is [`skeleton.md`](skeleton.md).
## Why
Every structural decision so far has been a **correction**: eight contexts replacing thirty-three
modules ([ADR 0015](../../02-DECISIONS/0015-mesh-brokers-nodes-host-agents-think.md)), domains
replacing single-function modules
([ADR 0017](../../02-DECISIONS/0017-modules-outside-the-core-are-grouped-by-domain.md)). A
correction inherits the frame of the thing it corrects, and two of the mesh's oldest problems
look unsolvable from inside that frame:
- **The bootstrap circularity.** The mesh needs a database, a bus, a registry and an identity
provider. Those are modules the mesh installs. The mesh cannot install them before it exists.
This has been worked around repeatedly and never designed away.
- **Participation requires privilege.** Everything assumes root on a machine whose packages and
services the mesh owns. A phone cannot participate on those terms, and neither can a machine
someone else administers.
Designing from nothing is a way to find out which parts of the current shape are requirements
and which are residue.
## The requirements this is designed against
Stated by the operator, recorded here so the skeleton can be checked against them rather than
against taste:
1. The mesh manages multiple computers — **full control**, through modules installed to nodes.
2. Mesh state lives in a **database**: which modules on which nodes, logs, configuration.
3. Configuration has **several touchpoints** — tool surface, web interface, others — all hosted
by the mesh itself.
4. **Connectivity** is core: every node reachable from every other over a shared overlay, some
nodes publicly exposed, firewalls configured.
5. The mesh **hosts applications** — and requires some of them itself. This is the circularity.
6. **Arch Linux only for now**; ideally any device, including phones, on lighter terms.
7. The end goal is to **operate an IT company** on it — development, design, deployment, full
circle, self-hosted. Personal cloud infrastructure.
8. **Agents make it self-improving and self-healing.**
9. It is **end-to-end testable on one machine**
([ADR 0016](../../02-DECISIONS/0016-a-lab-node-is-a-virtual-machine.md)).
## Status
A first skeleton exists, with four design moves that the current shape does not have. It is
`active` because two of them are unproven and one contradicts a record that is already
accepted.
**Finding worth stating up front:** [ADR 0015](../../02-DECISIONS/0015-mesh-brokers-nodes-host-agents-think.md)
names nine bounded contexts and **none of them owns connectivity** — no overlay, no resolution,
no firewall, no ingress. Requirement 4 has no home in the accepted decomposition, while
[research 005](../005-domain-grouping/analysis.md) found reachability to be the *only* part of
the catalogue where modules genuinely change together under one intent. The skeleton adds it.
## Open questions
| Question | Why it is open |
|---|---|
| Does the record — the event log contexts integrate through — belong to the substrate or the control plane? | It is infrastructure by shape and domain by content. Placing it wrong reintroduces a circularity. |
| One repository per tier, or per context? | Already open from ADR 0015 as "catalogue destination — one repository or many". The skeleton assumes per tier and does not settle it. |
| Does an unprivileged node earn a place in the inventory, or only a presence? | Decides whether "node" means one thing or two. |
| Does `feature` survive? | The skeleton splits it in two and argues the conflation is what makes the delivery pipeline hard to reason about. Unproven. |
| Is `tier` the right word? | It is this document's coinage, not established vocabulary, and it did not land on first reading. `boot order` and `ring` are the alternatives. The concept is settled; the word is not. |