RE: [bt-spec] RE: Proposal to resolve URI issue

["WEBBER,JIM (HP-UnitedKingdom,ex1)" <jim_webber@hp.com>]

> My objections lessen enormously if I have misunderstood, and 
> you are not proposing to drop 
> "target-additional-information". Can you clarify this point?

I would absolutely be beside myself if someone argued to drop
"target-additional-information" so, no, we're not arguing for that.

I think what we're saying is:

1. Need a token to identify transactions.
2. That token needs to be unique.
3. Might be nice if that token could also be used as a "reference" to that
transaction (i.e. use it for addressing and identification) in a
straightforward manner.

Assumptions:

1. Binding is to single protocol at any one time. Bridging protocols is
outside of our remit (and successfully handled by other commercial
products).
2. No restriction on what protocol you choose to bind to.

Jim