Right, so I guess I'm wondering how you reconcile your diagnosis of SSL/TLS needing input from cryptographers with the actual history of TLS. You claim, for instance, that TLS 1.2 was the first instance of the protocol that was actually vetted by cryptographers, which seems clearly not to be the case.
But really that's fair. And it's even possible that the key difference was only ever that we learned along the way how to do this and so any bunch of fools might have developed TLS 1.3 knowing what we did by then, while not even a prolonged public effort could have made SSLv3 good. Perhaps if that's right in ten years every Tom, Dick and Harry will have a high quality cryptographically secure protocol that isn't just TLS...
But I think what I was getting at is that at last TLS 1.2 had a bunch of outside cryptographers critiquing it. It's just that they're too late because it was finished. Some of the things that today are broken in TLS 1.2 weren't discovered years later, they were known (even if not always with a PoC exploit at the time) at roughly the time it was published. Having such critiques arrive during TLS 1.3 development meant the final document only had the problems known and accepted by the group [such as 0RTT is inherently less safe] plus, so far, the Selfie attack. Not bad.
