> However, I believe that you already said that you ran into problems with > gtalk dropping stanzas, probably due to rate limiting which is pretty > common. I'm just thinking that an out-of-band (direct connect) solution > might work better here. There are some OOB XEPs that could be used that > might help you.
Yes, out of band would bypass server issue. However, for the same amount of programming time, In-band works more reliably than out-of-band. Why? - Reliable out-of-band (for many of my use cases) requires becoming an expert on additional protocols -- whether it be jingle, or relay servers, or UPnP, or NAT tranversal technologies, or firewall transversal technologies (my company blocks everything except port 80, and I'd like browser-based real time text clients too). - In-band allows understanding of a standard with fewer references to fewer documents. - For programmers like me who's not used to programming at low level (network layers), the high level XML based protocol is much, much, much easier to implement than an RFC4103 based protocol. Relatively speaking, 'seq' is a super-simple method of detecting dropped messages, compared to the alternatives. I have done enough work already to express an intent to definitely continue with an in-band approach (even as a private/proprietary extension, if the standard is rejected).
