As I've stated numerous times, one of the great advantages of contexts
is that they can be used to support protocol extension arbitration. If
some client introduces protocol extensions (as will happen, whatever
protocol you decide for), it can put the additional commands a context
called "myext" or something. Then, to see if the other side supports
those extensions, it will simply request that the context "myext"
should be added, and if the other side agrees, all is well and those
commands may be used. That is the primary reason why I want the
contexts to be named.

With contexts, we have a more "object" oriented protocol where each context is basically self-sufficient.

Eric