Improve terminology

[chris-wood]

We need to improve the terminology in this draft. In particular, we need a distinguished term for the request to the proxy, which includes the encapsulated request, as well as a distinguished term for the inner request from client to target.

[LPardue]

This would IMO help. There seems to be important security properties related to demarcation between the requests and having terms that could lead to ambiguity doesn't seem good.

[tfpauly]

I personally used the following terms when I implemented the client-side:

• "Oblivious Request" is the encrypted message that goes from the client to the proxy
• "Oblivious Response" is the encrypted message that goes from the proxy to the client

I didn't have terms for the inner requests and responses — the response was just a "decrypted response". But using "inner" might make sense, or "plaintext"?

[martinthomson]

inner = encapsulated
outer = oblivious

These all work for me.

[chris-wood]

Hrm, on reflection, I don't think "oblivious request" and "oblivious response" will work for the client<>proxy messages, since oblivious request means something else in this document (the resource that decrypts the encapsulated request for the target). I have an alternative proposal in #121 that I think better describes the different requests and resources based on what they're doing.