Contrary to what Wikipedia says, I don't think agility is considered a desirable property by most cryptographers: you still have the "attacker stored encrypted material" problem, and now you have to worry about downgrade attacks.
Many of the most interesting/effective attacks on SSL/TLS have been downgrade attacks that stem directly from the protocol's (historically) agile design.
I disagree with your speculation as to what most cryptographers think. Are you basing this on any data you can share?
Please also see the other thread about how this secret storage system is different from a communication protocol. Namely, communication protocols have a two step attack: first attacker must MITM and record ciphertext, then they must wait. This secret storage method is different (one step attack): attacker looks for ciphertexts on either targeted or non-targeted basis that use old standard. Persistence, caches and publication of these secrets has been done for them.
It's a good point about downgrade attacks. They have been brutal for TLS to deal with.
> I disagree with your speculation as to what most cryptographers think. Are you basing this on any data you can share?
No, just conversations. I'll admit it's just speculation.
Maybe I should qualify: there's "cryptographic agility" in the protocol sense (a single version of a protocol can accept a wide range of primitives, with the idea being that users can upgrade their primitives as old ones become insecure), and there's "cryptographic agility" in a more abstract design sense: wire formats, etc. should be devolved from the primitives in such a way that the protocol can be switched to secure primitives without requiring unrelated changes, and in a way that doesn't surface any differences to the user.
To my understanding, the first sense of "cryptographic agility" is widely discouraged: we've yet to figure out a really reliable way to provide backwards compatibility without enabling malicious downgrades. The second sense is not something I've heard people use the phrase "cryptographic agility" for, but that's possibly just ignorance on my part. If that is indeed another form of agility, I believe that's widely considered to be good design (and this design is "agile" in that sense, since existing messages do not compromise the security of an upgraded scheme).
Many of the most interesting/effective attacks on SSL/TLS have been downgrade attacks that stem directly from the protocol's (historically) agile design.