Support Different Port for PUTs compared to GETs

[jcourt562]

Is it the intention that ANY credential issuer can use ANY tails file server ?

Currently there is only a single PORT configured for the tails server. GETs HAVE to be available to the public however allowing PUTs on the same port means that any issuers capable of writing a revocable registry entry to the ledger could use any ones tails file server. This seems problematic and suggests a seperate PORT should be configurable for the PUT method so that it can be protected via standard firewall protection approaches.

It may seem crazy that anyone would use a tails server they don't have control of for their credentials however it does open a potential DOS avenue depending on the cost of ledger writes.

[swcurran]

Tails Server design has not gone through that much rigour. It might be a good to hold a discussion about what features we want in a tails server and formalize things like the topics you reference in your question. We implemented the tails server because we needed it -- and did a minimal design. At minimum, we do need a to control who is authorized to write to the tails server.

We've also seen some other potential resources that might go on a tails server in future related to issued VCs that we could think about.

[jcourt562]

I am adding some team stories locally to see if we can spend some time on these in Q3.