jschoubben
a72fea5342
The lab provides the underlay; the mesh builds the overlay. This is the boundary that decides whether the lab is worth having: a scenario that assigns overlay addresses, elects the hub and writes peer configuration certifies its own work — if the mesh's peering is broken, that scenario still comes up green. The most valuable thing the lab can test is exactly the part pre-building would replace. So a scenario declares what a hosting provider and a home router would provide: segments, which machine sits where at which address, what NAT is between them, which ports are forwarded, which machines are detached. It declares nothing about overlay addresses, hubs, peering, names or certificates, all of which become outcomes to observe. The declaration has four parts — segments, machines, place, snapshot — and the two scenario classes differ only in place. That is what makes one a strict subset of the other rather than a fork. Research 004's most important finding becomes a format constraint rather than a footnote: the routable segment must use RFC 5737 documentation space, because the mesh decides public versus private by matching the address, and a private range there makes the hub test as unreachable while the mesh silently never forms. A segment without behind: is routable, and a non-documentation address in it should be refused before anything is raised — ADR 0008 applied to a configuration file, since the failure it prevents has no error at all. Four things left open, including the one that matters most: a lab machine is always privileged, so the user and edge profiles have no scenario that exercises them.
03-DESIGN
The authoritative specification. Implementation is built against what is written here.
Two layers
| Folder | What it is |
|---|---|
00-as-is/ |
The mesh that exists today. Shipped behaviour, described as it is — including behaviour nobody would choose again. |
01-to-be/ |
The mesh being built toward. Every statement traceable to a record in 02-DECISIONS/. |
They are never mixed. A statement about the future does not belong in an as-is document, and an as-is document is never edited to describe an intention.
When a to-be design ships, it does not move. Its as-is counterpart is written or updated,
the to-be document's status becomes implemented, and both stand — one describing what runs,
the other recording what was intended. Deleting the intention loses the reasoning, which is
the expensive half.
Frontmatter
Every design document (not the READMEs) carries:
---
layer: as-is | to-be
status: designed | in-progress | implemented | abandoned
code: [] # owning code repo(s), from 00-META/repos.md
updated: YYYY-MM-DD # date of the last status change, not of text edits
decisions: [] # 02-DECISIONS/ records this document rests on
---
For an as-is document, status: implemented is the normal state — it describes something that
runs — and code: names where that implementation lives.
Status changes when implementation state changes, never because design text was edited. An
implemented claim must be defensible from the owning repository's main branch, not from
intent. If it cannot be checked, it is in-progress.
Cross-cutting views are generated from this frontmatter by the hq-status skill and never
written to disk.
What belongs here
Functional analysis, architectural description, and specification — prose and diagrams
only, no code. A manifest field may be named; a manifest may not be pasted. A document
enters the to-be layer only after the decision behind it is recorded in 02-DECISIONS/
and the research that produced it is closed.
Subfolders are encouraged where a layer grows enough to need them.