[vog]

What's the point of this nitpicking?

The title is perfectly fine for its purpose.

First, thanks to the terminology used by almost all commercial CAs, "SSL Certificates" is still the most commonly known term for that. Like it or not, but if you want to reach a wide audience, you need to say SSL in addition to TLS.

Second, even fewer people know the term X.509, insisting on that is like insisting on saying RFC-7540 instead of HTTP/2.

Third, in the very first sentence the article sets everything straight:

> We've been hard at work making Let's Encrypt TLS certificates as simple and safe as possible for developers and creators of all kinds

So ... is this an instance of commenting before actually having had just a tiny look at the article?

[parasubvert]

Because it is important that everyone understand that SSL is dead and TLS is the replacement. SSL/TLS is forgivable, saying SSL is sort of like writing a headline “How this company uses VHS” when you actually meant Betamax. It’s misleading.

[vog]

I still don't get it. This is clarified in the very first sentence of TFA. Why do you think it needs to be stuffed into the title?

[mcny]

We wouldn't need to have this conversation if the title said TLS.

[nailer]

You're correct, but you're fighting an uphill battle: https://certsimple.com/blog/ssl-or-tls

[stronglikedan]

When talking to management, I try to avoid the acronyms (SSL, TLS, HTTPS, etc.), and in this case, I've coined a phrase that I find be equally understood by management, devops, and sysadmins alike. I tell them that we need to "encrypt server X with a secure certificate" (or "secure cert" depending who I'm talking to, which is as short as the shortest acronym syllable-wise). It's vague enough to cover the spectrum of acronyms in a timeless (for the foreseeable future) way, but unambiguous enough that everyone understands.