Regarding `gemini://` over NaCL (replacing TLS)

[Sean Conner]

It was thus said that the Great Ciprian Dorin Craciun once stated:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:36 AM Bradley D. Thornton
> <Bradley at northtech.us> wrote:
> > Question: Isn't it (even if non-trivial) possible, to account for other
> > methods of encryption by the listening daemon, some servers being able
> > to secure communications by one or another method if the upcoming
> > clients can also support those technologies?
> 
> 
> This is exactly what happened with SSL (at least two versions) which
> coexisted alongside with TLSv1.0, which then together coexisted
> alongside with TLSv1.1, which then all together coexisted with
> TLSv1.2, which now all coexist with TLSv1.3;  and although everybody
> screams that anything under TLSv1.2 is "broken", we still haven't
> dropped support for TLSv1.1...  :)

  Because dropping support would make too many people scream.  As I told a
VP of the company I work for, "it doesn't make sense for our department to
have two week sprints when our customer [the Monopolistic Phone Company] has
two year sprints!" It took five years just to get a flag we needed added to
a message. [1]

  -spc

[1]	We were able to work around it, but it wasn't pretty.