[lint] protobufer types should(n't) be named after RPC name

[JordiSubira]

Currently the linting complains if we want to use the well-known types google.protobuf.Empty https://protobuf.dev/reference/protobuf/google.protobuf/#empty.

proto/daemon/v1/daemon.proto:40:19:RPC request type "Empty" should be named "PortRangeRequest" or "DaemonServicePortRangeRequest".

In the same document, they encourage to use it to avoid duplicity and having a myriad of protobuf types which are empty. Is there a good reason why we would like to have one empty type for request?