jochen
c839d9ac26
Two things the report got wrong, and one it could not have found the way it looked. Disclosure first: it carried a real hostname and an absolute node path, in a public repository. Both are gone; the ingress, the modules and the routes are named by role, as the rest of 04-ISSUES does. The count was low. Basic authentication has three dependents in the catalogue, not one — the key-value store's browser UI, a database web UI, and the ingress's own dashboard. All three are credential-less admin surfaces whose only gate is a middleware the mesh's proxy lacks. The earlier version read only the node's dynamic configuration directory, which cannot see what modules declare as container labels; counting needs both sources, and the report now says so. Two gaps were missing entirely. Redirect rules: two live routes canonicalise a www name onto its apex, they exist only on the node and not in the catalogue, and they fail silently rather than erroring. And path-scoped routing with priority, which is the one that reorders the issue: the table maps host to exactly one target, so a host cannot be routed two ways, and the refusal rule matches a path on a host already routed elsewhere. Authentication and a source filter would not make it expressible. Path scoping is a prerequisite, not a sibling. Also corrected: the refusal rule was described as an address-scoped deny. It is an allow-list holding a single documentation-range address — deny-everyone — so reading it as address-scoped points at the wrong fix. And its severity was understated: its own header records it as incident response closing an abused write primitive, which is not "a real exposure" but a live mitigation. The open questions now say plainly that they are design questions and the fix should not be written before they are answered, and one is added: whether a declaration may carry a credential at all.
Novox HQ
The single source of truth for what Novox builds — what it is, what it is becoming,
and why. Today that is almost entirely Novox Mesh, the foundation everything else runs on. Implementation lives in modules/; the reasoning behind it lives here.
Structure
| Folder | Purpose |
|---|---|
00-META |
Mission, foundational context, the rules that hold across the mesh, the repository map, and the process playbooks. The northern star for every decision. |
01-RESEARCH |
Active and historical investigations, before they harden into design. |
02-DECISIONS |
Numbered decision records, in the order the decisions were taken — what was chosen, and what was rejected. |
03-DESIGN |
The authoritative specification, in two layers: 00-as-is — the mesh that exists — and 01-to-be — the one being built toward. |
04-ISSUES |
The front door for "something is wrong" at the level of design or governance. |
The numbering is the flow. Research produces a decision; the decision authorises a design.
That is why decisions are 02 and design is 03 — a reader following the numbers walks the
process in the order it happens.
The flow
idea ──► 01-RESEARCH ──► decision (02-DECISIONS/) ──► 03-DESIGN/01-to-be ──► built (code repo)
│ │ │
│ │ └─► 03-DESIGN/00-as-is once shipped
│ └────► abandoned (recorded, kept)
└─(small/obvious, still recorded in 02-DECISIONS)──────────► 03-DESIGN directly
symptom ──► 04-ISSUES ──► diagnosis ──► code-repo fix and/or design amendment
00-META/how-we-build.md ──► sync ──► the constitution the mesh injects into design sessions
Implementation lives in the code repositories — see
00-META/repos.md. Every workflow is a playbook in
00-META/process/; agents operate through them and not outside them.
Rules
- Markdown only.
- No new top-level folders without explicit confirmation.
- Knowledge flows
GENESIS → RESEARCH → DESIGN. Research graduates into design only after analysis against GENESIS confirms alignment, and only through a recorded decision. - Status lives in frontmatter, never in a central status file. Cross-cutting views are generated on demand, never hand-maintained.
- GENESIS and DESIGN are instance-agnostic. They describe the mesh as a concept — no machine names, no counts, no topology. A reader must not be able to tell how many nodes the author happened to have.
- RESEARCH describes real observations, but never identifies the mesh it observed. Evidence is what makes research worth reading, and the shape of a finding survives anonymisation intact — a node publicly named but behind a household NAT carries the whole lesson without naming anything.
- The as-is layer records what is, not what should be — including behaviour nobody would choose again. A layer that keeps only the good decisions is a brochure.
- A document that states a rule about the mesh should say how that rule is checked. This repository has a rule requiring every capability-exposing module to declare the core runtime as a dependency; zero modules do. An unenforced rule is indistinguishable from a wrong one.
This repository is public
Written for a reader who is not its author and has no access to the mesh it describes. Concretely, nothing here may contain:
- routable addresses, real domain names, hosting providers, or node names — use the
documentation ranges (RFC 5737
203.0.113.0/24, RFC 1918) and role names such asanchor,home-server,workstation,laptop - absolute paths from anyone's machine, usernames, home directories, or email addresses
- credentials in any form, including lengths or hashes of live secrets
- operational detail that is only useful to an attacker — which host is the VPN hub, on which port, which node is reachable only through a forwarded port
Private-range addresses and the overlay plan are fine: they describe a pattern, not a target.
The test is whether a paragraph would still teach something to a stranger running an entirely different mesh. If it would, it belongs. If it only makes sense to someone who knows this particular installation, it is either a note in the wrong place or a disclosure.
Why this is its own repository
It began inside the code repository, on the reasoning that the mesh already has a mesh-native knowledge store and that adding a fourth knowledge system would repeat the mistake this folder was created to fix.
That objection was about a fourth knowledge system, and the answer offered was indexing rather than location — that these documents would be indexed into the knowledge base, so a symptom search returns them beside everything else. One source, many surfaces. Where the source is authored is then a separate question.
That indexing does not exist. It was checked on 2026-08-23 and returns nothing; it appears
never to have existed. Until it does, the objection stands unanswered and this repository is
the fourth knowledge system it was argued not to be. Recorded as
04-ISSUES/006, and
left standing here rather than quietly reworded, because a claim that held up a decision and
was never checked is precisely the failure this repository exists to name.
Answered separately, a repository of its own is the better home:
- The cadence is different. A decision changes when thinking changes, not when code changes. Tying documents to a code branch means they merge on the code's schedule.
- The reviewers are different. A design argument is not reviewed the way an implementation is, and it should not queue behind a build.
- The scope is wider than one repository. ADR 0001 sends most modules out of the monorepo entirely. Documentation that governs several repositories cannot live inside one of them.
The trade is real and worth naming: a change to a document and the change to the code it
describes can no longer land in one commit. Keeping them honest is a discipline now rather
than a mechanism — which is why every decision is recorded in
02-DECISIONS as it is taken, and why a document that states a rule should
say how the rule is checked.
Recorded as ADR 0019.