Re: [Ohai] Terminology updates

[Eric Orth <[e-mail]>]

+1.  I like these names.

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 8:59 PM Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Speaking of a similar shade, I want to point out that the Oblivious Relay,
> Oblivious Gateway, and Target are all Resources in the sense that they are
> each identified by a URI with the "https" scheme.  We'll write them out in
> full in the spec, but I expect that an acceptable in-context shorthand will
> just be client, relay, gateway, and target.
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2022, at 00:35, Lucas Pardue wrote:
> > +1 to this name change, or a very very similar shade
> >
> > I think the present terminology makes the protocol sound harder than it
> > actually is. Thanks for working on trying to clarify and simplify the
> > language.
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 3:13 PM Tommy Pauly
> > <tpauly=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> These proposed names seem reasonable. I like that they have “Oblivious”
> in the name, so it will be clear when used in other contexts that they
> refer to OHTTP. It’s also probably for the best that we avoid “proxy” since
> that has many meanings, and “relay” works fine here.
> >>
> >> This is an acceptable shade to paint the bike shed =)
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Tommy
> >>
> >> > On Jun 29, 2022, at 7:04 AM, Christopher Wood <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi folks,
> >> >
> >> > Issue #121 [1] discusses the terminology used in the draft.
> Currently, we have the following four entities:
> >> >
> >> >   Client <> Oblivious Proxy <> Oblivious Request <> Target
> >> >
> >> > And we have the following three distinguished types of requests:
> >> >
> >> > - Client -> Proxy
> >> > - Proxy -> Request
> >> > - Request -> Target
> >> >
> >> > The Client->Proxy and Proxy->Request requests carry an encrypted (or
> encapsulated) request in their body, and the Request->Target request is
> this decapsulated/decrypted request.
> >> >
> >> > In discussing OHTTP with folks, it’s become clear that the names used
> here are somewhat confusing. To help make the concepts more clear, I think
> it’d be useful to establish better names for the entities and requests used
> in the document. Obviously, this is a bike shed, but it’s a shed worth
> painting now rather than later.
> >> >
> >> > After discussing with several people, Martin and I settled on the
> following proposal. First, let’s rename the four entities to the following:
> >> >
> >> >   Client <> Oblivious Relay <> Oblivious Gateway <> Target
> >> >
> >> > We use gateway here because the entity does a couple of different
> things to transform ingress requests to requests for the target, including
> decapsulation and replay prevention. And we use the term relay here to
> distinguish this entity from a traditional proxy.
> >> >
> >> > With these names, we then use the following terms for the three
> distinguished requests:
> >> >
> >> > - Client -> Oblivious Relay: Oblivious Relay Request (carrying an
> Encrypted Request)
> >> > - Oblivious Relay -> Oblivious Gateway: Oblivious Gateway Request
> (carrying the same Encrypted Request)
> >> > - Oblivious Gateway -> Target: Request
> >> >
> >> > What do folks think of this proposal?
> >> >
> >> > Best,
> >> > Chris
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://github.com/ietf-wg-ohai/oblivious-http/issues/121
> >> > --
> >> > Ohai mailing list
> >> > [e-mail]
> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ohai
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ohai mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ohai
> > --
> > Ohai mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ohai
>
> --
> Ohai mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ohai
>