I am not suggesting that anyone use something else besides SSL. Use whatever you want to use. I am suggesting that SSL users may want to consider the merits of the SNI extension. Website owners are unlikely to care let alone oppose it.
As a www user, I do not like SNI and that is only an opinion, as a user. Why? Because all existing software that has to be SSL compatible now has to be modified to handle SNI. As a user, I derive no benefit from SNI. That is why I dislike it, first and foremost.
But I believe there may be other reasons to dislike it. Perhaps privacy. Perhaps censorship. Maybe none of the above. I don't know. You decide.
In any event, it seems there are at least a few folks that agree with me that the merits of SNI are at least questionable which is both surprising and encouraging.
As a www user, I do not like SNI and that is only an opinion, as a user. Why? Because all existing software that has to be SSL compatible now has to be modified to handle SNI. As a user, I derive no benefit from SNI. That is why I dislike it, first and foremost.
But I believe there may be other reasons to dislike it. Perhaps privacy. Perhaps censorship. Maybe none of the above. I don't know. You decide.
In any event, it seems there are at least a few folks that agree with me that the merits of SNI are at least questionable which is both surprising and encouraging.