I would rather we stick to the stealth address format that exists and finalize it instead of switching to another construction stealth addressing, when it's being used in essentially the same way.

Stealth addressing works OK as is, however we can transmit the extra data from that would normally be disclosed in an OP_RETURN out-of-band via an intermediary like Bitmessage. Essentially this appears to be your described protocol, and I think it'd be preferred if we worked within the established protocol as an extension of the proposed BIP0063, and backwards compatible with the described address format.

Additionally, solicitation (Notification Transaction) should be done out-of-band, rather that by the use of the blockchain and OP_RETURN tagging. I think it's potentially wasteful, aside from being permanently embedded in the blockchain and by which causing a loss of privacy. A proper out-of-band solution for stealth transacting should never need to resort to blockchain access, as far as I am concerned.