Below is a dialogue between software developers, the first one used ChatGPT in his solution of code task and makes a comment,   the second one gives him reply on his solution. Write a reply that appropriately answers the comment.

### Comment:
 specificationto avoid the overhead of creating and negotiation separate websocket connections per rpc call. we need to add the ability to multiplex streams over a single websocket stream.since webstreams are a message based protocal, we can wrap each message in a header to add data for multiplexing. worst case we can searalized and deseralize json in a stream, the same way we do for the jsonrpc messages.this will be abstracted on top of webstreams. we will have a multiplexing transform that will implement the multiplexing and a demux transform### Reply:
this issue needs further specification based on the qa notes im copying over here.the original design of our rpc system was the assumption that the underlying transport will handle multiplexing and encryption. it was supposed to give us  major constructs to work with connection and stream.rpcwise, the only thing it needs to care about is stream concept. when you make an rpc call to somewhere else, you need to open a stream. if you receive a stream, then you are handling an rpc call. thats it. the stream has to bidirectional and fullduplex.this is achieved right now by both jsquic and the current ws implementation in pk.however theres a key feature right now thats actually missing in the ws implementation. in quic, it is possible for the server which received a connection, to open up new streams back to the client on the same connection.with ws, it is not currently possible. right now we are treating each ws connection as the stream, meaning a  to  relationship between connection and stream.without this ability, theres no way to achieve a sort of rpc __conversation__ context. we have some situations where this is useful. where the handling of an rpc call involves calling back to the client on a different handler. think like a.f calling b.g which calls a.h. we see this with things like node claims, and later with smart token usage.now with ws, it could work if both sides can just open new connections to each other. you can do this in quic too. however its not as efficient as simply opening a new stream on the same connection. and furthermore, this actually cannot work if the client cannot run a server to accept new connections.when using quic, agents are both clients and servers. thus you can initiate connections from any host.when using ws for the client service. the pkc is only a client, and the pka is only a server. its not possible for the pka to open a new ws connection to the pkc. and this is further complicated by the fact that pkc may run in a browser! which would not expose the underlying websocket server at all!so in order to achieve a sort of rpc conversation. it would be necessary to add an additional multiplexing layer on top of the ws connection. thus creating ws streams on top of ws connections. doing this would make our ws transport very similar to quic.doing this also means the ws protocol is more complicated. we leverage wss natural message framing using binary messages, and put a header in front. this header must then supply  pieces of information the stream id and the message type.the stream id can be a varint similar to quics varint.the message type can be x, x and x for data, error, close respectively. or whatever is convenient.the rest of the payload will then be plugged into the relevant ws stream for further processing.note that json rpc has an id field. we can just simply copy over the stream id here, or use it for loggingauditingidentification. its not really used for tracking our streams. could be useful for tracing.when using websocat to test this out, we can do things likefor quicstyle varints, the encoding is a bit different than protocol buffers varints. the size of the varint is determined by the two highest bits of the first byte   byte  bits of data   bytes  bits of data,  from the first byte,  from the second   bytes  bits of data   bytes  bits of datafor the numbers  through , only the byte format is needed since they can all be represented in  bits or fewerusing printf in a shell to display quicstyle varints for numbers  through as you can see, the representation for numbers  to  is identical in output between protocol buffers and quicstyle varints. the difference arises mainly when you go beyond bit values, as the way the continuation bits work and the total length of the varint changes between the two methods.