I don't think that is a widely held opinion. Nor is it a helpful way to describe it.

That was not a description. I merely appended the primary motivation for pipelining. We trade latency for throughput in pipelining.

It's also not opinion. When pipelining, the communicating peers are not sychronizing their interactions; it occurs in an a-synchronous manner. Where does opinion get into the picture?

I was not referring to the statement that pipelining serves maximizing throughput. I agree with that. I was referring to the statement that pipelining would be a kind of asynchronous communication.

Look, you are welcome to your 'opinion' but the q remains (given that there are only 2 choices here) as how pipeling is a form of "synchronous" communication.

[p.s.]:

pipelining is a kind of async comm because unlike the general case of asynchrony, the response order mirrors the request order (which is not a requirement of the general case.)

I never said that pipelining is synchronous communication. If our go back to my original post. I merely said that (a)synchronicy is not a feature of a protocol, but how sender/receiver handle the communication internally.