So they couldn't call it "SSL 3" because it couldn't be seen to be the Netscape proposal - fair enough.
But it's a shame they didn't take the simpler route and just call it "SSL 4".
TLS is also a better name than SSL. A "socket" is an implementation concept. TLS really does secure the transport layer.
To allow for many processes within a single Host to use TCP communication facilities simultaneously, the TCP provides a set of addresses or ports within each host. Concatenated with the network and host addresses from the internet communication layer, this forms a socket. A pair of sockets uniquely identifies each connection. That is, a socket may be simultaneously used in multiple connections.
But then, it is a TCP specific concept, and TLS is a better name because it can be used on top of other transport layers.
I'd make two counterarguments about RFC 793:
1. It was written in 1981. You can find lots of other terms in early-80s RFCs that are no longer applicable to modern TCP/IP.
2. It was written in a time when Unix (and I guess VMS) implementation concerns infected all of standards work; if you follow the IETF, particularly DNS, there has been a long painful process of trying to disinfect standards of implementation entanglements.
But we agree on TLS being the better name, which is probably all the matters to the thread.
MS and Netscape both had a set of "foundation classes". Netscape's were much, much better, so, given the time constraints, I used those. Because of a little bit of window dressing in the scroll bars, somebody from a recent acquisition noticed it was Netscape's classes and, by itself, that killed my project and almost killed the entire deal.
The nineties were an ugly time for software development, thanks to Microsoft.