Something about that particular RFC?
"that particular RFC" is actually an expired Internet-Draft. And no, I don't see any problems with it1 either. It's much better to have this issue - a pressing one for large sites using HTTPS, and one that will only get worse - handled by the IETF than by random half-assed non-standard approaches cooked up by half a dozen companies.
Streaky's an idiot.
1Or more precisely, I see problems with it, but they're not easy ones to solve and the authors appear to be aware of most of them. (The most glaring issue is that users need to understand the consequences of opting-out, or not, when presented with a Secure Proxy. Most users won't. But most users have no idea what HTTP or TLS are, or what they do, or under what conditions a given connection can be considered trustworthy. So this isn't really a change.) More importantly, these are difficult problems; there's no sign that the authors of the I-D were incompetent or mendacious. It's not Dual_EC_DRBG.