From 5bce0acad6d10f9b952874f1359406b4eae3a8f9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christophe Besson Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:46:48 +0200 Subject: docs: drop the invitation-link plan from the tree The plan was a working document; what it decided lives in MESHBAY_DESIGN.md and MESHBAY_NODE_PROTOCOL.md. Code and tests now cite those instead. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 --- docs/MESHBAY_NODE_PROTOCOL.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'docs/MESHBAY_NODE_PROTOCOL.md') diff --git a/docs/MESHBAY_NODE_PROTOCOL.md b/docs/MESHBAY_NODE_PROTOCOL.md index 62a76ef..3ae533b 100644 --- a/docs/MESHBAY_NODE_PROTOCOL.md +++ b/docs/MESHBAY_NODE_PROTOCOL.md @@ -868,7 +868,7 @@ source of authority is a second thing to get wrong. A code for someone who may have no account yet, so it names none: it is bound to the first account that redeems it (`invite_link_create`, §10.4). What stops a stranger holding it is not the node but the hub, which lets only the account whose verified -address the inviter named reach the node at all (`docs/invite-links.md` §3.5). At the +address the inviter named reach the node at all (`MESHBAY_DESIGN.md` §3.4). At the node it is therefore a **bearer code**, and everything else about it is fixed: * role `member`, never `operator`; a row that says otherwise is refused, not honoured; -- cgit v1.2.3