In response to Randy's newly proposed addition you wrote:
> This sounds good, but you still have not explained why we want it and
> what potential use we would have of it? I assume the intent is to keep
> several related operations together, but is that not also important for
> the server to know about?
It's not important (nor even useful) for the server to know about such
client-specified transaction IDs.
Client-specified transaction IDs can be found in lots of different
protocols, including SNMP and CPAP. As Randy pointed out, it helps
the client match responses to previous requests. This allows a
client to post multiple requests at one time--without waiting for
the responses in a synchronous manner--then later match the responses
once they arrive from the server.
Good idea, Randy, although such transaction IDs probably won't be of
much use in the HTTP-mapped implementation scenario.
...jay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm at underscore.com --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
----------------------------------------------------------------------