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.
04-ISSUES
The front door for "something is wrong" at the level of the mesh's design or governance. Diagnosis happens here, where the whole mesh is in view; the fix lands in the owning code repository.
What belongs here
| Belongs here | Belongs in the knowledge base |
|---|---|
| The design permits a failure to be silent | How to fix one occurrence of it |
| A documented rule is enforced by nothing | A command that works around it |
| A stated invariant is false in practice | A node-specific quirk |
| The owner is unknown and finding it needs the whole mesh in view | Symptom → fix, once the answer is known |
The knowledge base already holds the operational record and is indexed on symptoms. This folder is not a second copy of it. An issue here is a question HQ must answer; an entry there is an incident someone must clear. An issue whose answer is a general lesson belongs in both.
Structure
NNN-short-name/
00-report.md the symptom as observed, with the evidence; status in frontmatter
01-diagnosis.md the investigation trail, dated, including what was ruled out
Frontmatter, on 00-report.md
---
status: open | diagnosing | located | resolved | wontfix
opened: YYYY-MM-DD
located-in: [] # owning repo(s) or module(s), filled by diagnosis
fixed-by: # pull request or commit reference, filled at resolution
amended-design: # design doc path, when the root cause was a design gap
---
Rules
- Anyone may open an issue. No localisation is required to report one.
- The full flow is playbook
00-META/process/03-issues.md. - Closed issues are never deleted — they are the mesh's symptom-to-component memory.
wontfixis legitimate and requires a sentence saying why.