ossfellow

Hello @brooksmtownsend, Does this look okay? If it does, then, I'll create the PR; otherwise let me know of any other improvements you'd like to see: 

@brooksmtownsend , the DCO check is failing due to older, upstream, or automation commits that are not part of my actual PR changes. I have ensured that all my own...

Please see PR #4540, which has replaced this

@brooksmtownsend, thank you for taking the time to review the PR, and all the great feedback provided. I'd like to mention a few things for your consideration: 1. I used...

> Hey @ossfellow just a quick ask here, would you mind rebasing this PR off of `main` to help get rid of the commits that are from upstream and not...

@thomastaylor312, @brooksmtownsend, in the latest round of updates, in addition to what I mentioned in PR feedback responses, I took the hint @Mossaka had provided and treat deleting non-existent objects...

> Smallest change, I know that this will trigger spelling errors in the docs build unless it is marked as code. PR updated.

@thomastaylor312, @brooksmtownsend, thank you for the reviews and help. I've rebased and squashed to commits into one.

@thomastaylor312, thank you for the tip; it's done; the `async_nats` API has changed, and added `headers` and `metadata`, which I've added, without supplying any values.

While this makes it easier to differentiate between connections, one question I have is if an explicit reference to NATS will be future proof (i.e. when we make the transport...