I get naming security vulnerability make them easier to talk about and spread awareness. But I think if the answer to "should I drop everything and fix this" is not yes, it doesn't need to be marketed so well.
What these attacks often do however is breaking existing expectations. I think this attack ticks quite a few boxes there. It questions the idea that TLS can be "layered" on top of existing protocols and just be secure without consideration for the underlying protocols. It breaks security independently of all the fancy crypto we have in TLS 1.3 that we enforced due to previous attacks on weak crypto. It shows a generic problem with TLS that hasn't been tackled properly yet.
It very much deserves whatever name the team chose to gave it.