“Transport Layer Security” really is a better name though. I also like to say “TLS”. Two Ses in a row makes you sound like a snake.
Transport Layer Security is widely documented as beginning in 1999.
I can find references to "Thread Local Storage" going back to at least 1996. That particular term seems more common in the Microsoft (and maybe IBM, does anyone have an OS/2 programming manual?) world at the time; Pthreads (1995) and Unix in general tended to call it "thread-specific data".
It's possible that the highly influential 2001 Itanium ABI document (which directly led to Drepper's TLS paper) brought the term to (widespread) use in the broader Unix world, though Sun (for both Solaris and Java?) was using the term previously. But it's also possible that I'm just missing the reference material.
Look to Windows NT rather than to OS/2 for thread-local storage. TlsAlloc() et al. were in the Win32 API right from NT 3.1, I think.
Plus, who doesn't like to sound like a snake sometimes? Snakes are badass.
I like to imagine an alternate past where ipsec "won" and how that would affect our expectations of secure connections. One thing different is that the security would handled at the os level instead of the application level, on the one hand this is nice all application get a secure connection whether they want one or not, on the other hand the application has no idea it is using a secure transport and has no way of indicating this to the user.
Anyhow the opportunistic connection employment of ipsec never really got implemented and all we use it for anymore is as a dedicated tunnel. one that is fiendishly difficult to employ.
I think the primary problem with ipsec is that it tried to be too flexible. this made setting up a ipsec link a non-trivial exercise in communication, and the process never got streamlined enough to just be invisible and work.
And that data-stream the interface that TLS provides; to the higher layers it looks like a transport layer.
> And that data-stream the interface that TLS provides
That’s exactly the problem. You might lose a UDP packet. That would corrupt data encrypted with stream cipher.
With DTLS, each packet is encrypted individually.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datagram_Transport_Layer_Sec...
DTLS, by contrast, provides a record number hint (the low order bits of the record number and epoch) to assist in record number reconstruction: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9147.html#name-reconstruct....
(It isn't quite a layer-3/internetwork-layer -like interface; from the UDP that it sits on, it has a multiplexing component that is "half" of a layer 4 interface.)