Name it wg-app-link

`wg-link` was not merely vague. `wg` and `ip link` are both real network
tools, so it reads as something that manages a WireGuard interface --
misleading rather than ambiguous. `app` rules that reading out, and says
which two ends the link is between.

The repository is still called wg-server-app until it is renamed on
gitea; the crate leads.

README.md

@@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ time the sharing paid rather than merely being argued for.
 
 ## What is here
 
-`server/` — the `wg-link` crate. Three modules, each extracted only after
+`server/` — the `wg-app-link` crate. Three modules, each extracted only after
 diffing the two copies and finding nothing but a name between them.
 
 - **`netif`** — `wg_address()`, which fails closed when the tunnel is down, and `local_addresses()` for the certificate's SANs. The product name is a parameter so the failure reads as advice rather than as a library complaining.
@@ -119,11 +119,21 @@ diffing the two copies and finding nothing but a name between them.
 
 ## The name
 
-`wg-server-app` describes the two things it was extracted from. `wg-link`
+`wg-app-link`: the link between an app and the machine it talks to, over
-— the crate's name here — describes what it actually is: neither a server
+WireGuard.
-nor an app, but the link between them. Renaming the repo to match is a
+
-`mv` and a rename on gitea; the crate can also be renamed the other way.
+Two earlier names were worse. `wg-server-app` names the two projects this
-Whichever is preferred, it should be one name rather than two.
+came out of rather than what it is, which stops being useful the moment a
+third one uses it. `wg-link` was worse still, and not merely vague —
+`wg` and `ip link` are both real network tools, so it reads as something
+that manages a WireGuard interface. `app` is what rules that reading out.
+
+The `wg-` prefix does slightly oversell WireGuard's share of the code:
+only `netif` is about the tunnel, while `enroll`, `private` and the
+certificate work are not. It earns its place anyway, because binding the
+tunnel is the architectural premise the rest follows from — it is why
+there is no LAN exposure to defend, and why a plain-HTTP bootstrap port is
+safe to offer at all.
 
 ## Testing
 

server/Cargo.lock

@@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ source = "registry+https://github.com/rust-lang/crates.io-index"
 checksum = "e6e4313cd5fcd3dad5cafa179702e2b244f760991f45397d14d4ebf38247da75"
 
 [[package]]
-name = "wg-link"
+name = "wg-app-link"
 version = "0.1.0"
 dependencies = [
  "anyhow",

server/Cargo.toml

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 [package]
-name = "wg-link"
+name = "wg-app-link"
 version = "0.1.0"
 edition = "2024"
 description = "The private link between a phone and a machine you run: WireGuard binding, a self-signed CA the app pins, and QR enrollment of a bearer token."