jschoubben
333356cff3
Jochen asked whether the order made sense. It did not -- it followed when things happened to be decided, which after consolidation is fictional anyway since record 5 alone folds decisions taken across a week. Concretely wrong before: the domain statement sat at 8, after five engineering rules; the constitution was scattered across 5, 12 and 17; the tiers landed at 15, 16, 21 and 22 with process records in between. Now it walks: what the mesh is (1-3), its tiers from the bottom up (4-8), what runs on them and how it gets there (9-10), how it is built (11-16), how it is checked (17-18), how we work (19-23). Two things made this safe rather than free. It is a permutation, not a compaction, so the renames go through temporary names -- otherwise two files want one slot and one is lost. And the reference rewrite is a single simultaneous pass, because almost every number moved into a slot another number was vacating; replacing one at a time would have cascaded and pointed things at the wrong record while still resolving. Verified: 284 [ADR NNNN](path) links across the repository, all with matching text and target. The ordering principle is now stated in 19 rather than left implicit -- the repository already said "the numbering is the flow" about its folders, and there was no reason for the records to be the exception.
1.3 KiB
1.3 KiB
status, opened, located-in, fixed-by, amended-design
| status | opened | located-in | fixed-by | amended-design |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| open | 2026-08-22 |
004 — Certificate issuance always targets the authority's production endpoint
Symptom
The reverse proxy sets no staging endpoint for its certificate resolver. Issuance therefore goes to the public authority's production endpoint in every case, including experiments.
Why this matters
Production issuance is rate-limited per domain and per account. Every certificate experiment on a real node consumes quota that is not replenished quickly, and exhausting it is not recoverable by retrying — it removes the ability to issue a certificate anyone actually needs.
The consequence lands hardest on exactly the work most likely to iterate: standing up a new node, changing how names resolve, or testing the lab's certificate authority split (ADR 0016).
Evidence
- The resolver configuration declares no staging endpoint.
- Observed 2026-08-22.
Open questions
- Should the endpoint be a node property — production for nodes serving real traffic, staging everywhere else — rather than a fixed proxy setting?
- The lab issues its own certificates and so does not consume public quota at all. Does that make this a problem only for experiments run outside the lab, and therefore an argument for running them inside it?