The next step after the schema: inventory now holds node records and enrolment
tokens, and mesh-control has the commands to work with them.
A token is issued for a node record, which is where re-enrolment gets decided
-- what an identity binds to is settled when the token is made, not when it is
presented, so the machine presenting one does not need to know whether it is
joining or returning.
What the token guarantees, each with a test confirmed to fail when the
behaviour is removed: the secret is 256 random bits, shown once and stored only
as a hash; it works exactly once; it stops working when it expires; issuing
again for a node invalidates the outstanding one, because two live tokens are
two machines able to join as the same node. Redemption is a single statement
that finds and spends together, so eight concurrent attempts on one secret
produce exactly one winner rather than a race between a check and a write.
Refusals are deliberately identical for unknown, spent and expired. Somebody
guessing must not learn which guess was a real token that had merely aged out.
SHA-256 rather than a password hash, and that is a choice not a shortcut: the
secret is high-entropy random, so there is nothing to guess and a slow hash
would buy nothing while making every redemption expensive.
It stops before what a node receives in exchange. What a machine presents
afterwards to prove it is that node is not decided anywhere, and a migration is
the most expensive place here to guess.
So a token carries one of the four things ADR 0004 requires. The command prints
the secret and then says exactly that -- the broker's address, its certificate
fingerprint and the control plane's signing identity do not exist yet. Better
than emitting something that looks complete and silently cannot be used.
Tier 2 exists now. It holds one context of seven, inventory, and does one
thing with it: brings its schema up to date. That is step 3 of the substrate
bootstrap -- the step the first node cannot get past.
Verified against a real PostgreSQL, with the built binary: applied 0001-nodes,
reported 'already up to date' on the second run, and the node table is there
with the index and the unique constraint the migration asks for.
Written in Go, and the image is FROM scratch holding one file. Confirmed by
unpacking it. That is the whole argument of ADR 0024: the bundle pins this
image by digest and runs it where nothing can check it, so everything in it is
something a person has to audit before trusting a first node.
Exclusive store ownership is built as a rule about credentials rather than
about intentions. There is no mesh-wide connection setting and no way to ask
for one -- a context reads MESH_STORE_<ITS OWN NAME> and holds nothing else, so
reaching another context's store needs a new variable, which is visible in the
declaration that runs it.
The migration runner is mostly refusals: an edited migration that already ran,
a migration numbered below one that has run, duplicate numbers, misnamed files,
empty files. All stop rather than warn, because at the moment any of them is
true nobody knows what the database holds.
It stops before identity, deliberately. What a node presents to prove who it is
has not been decided anywhere, and a migration is the most expensive place in
this system to guess.
Two tests did not defend what they claimed, and both are fixed rather than
removed. One asked only whether Open returned an error, which it did either way
-- a bad context name and a missing credential both fail, so deleting the name
check changed nothing. The other claimed to prove the migration runs in a
transaction, but PostgreSQL already wraps a multi-statement query in one of its
own, so it passed with the transaction taken out. What the transaction actually
buys is that the schema change and the row recording it commit together, and
there is now a test for that which fails when they are split.
jschoubben