Code change:
over the streams can be represented similarly to the TCP stream (one Message per direction, see tcp). <ins> Connectedness: Multiplexing Connected Data Unit: Stream Connection objects represent a single HTTP/2 stream on a HTTP/2 connection. 9.8. To support sender-side stream schedulers (which are implemented on the sender side), a receiver-side Transport System should always support message interleaving RFC8260. SCTP messages can be very large.  To allow the reception of large messages in pieces, a "partial flag" can be used to inform a (native SCTP) receiving application that a message is incomplete.  After receiving the "partial flag", this application would know that the next receive calls will only deliver remaining parts of the same message (i.e., no messages or partial messages will arrive on other streams until the message is complete) (see Section 8.1.20 in RFC6458).  The "partial flag" can therefore facilitate the implementation of the receiver buffer in the receiving application, at the cost of limiting multiplexing and temporarily creating head- of-line blocking delay at the receiver. When a Transport System transfers a Message, it seems natural to map the Message object to SCTP messages in order to support properties such as "Ordered" or "Lifetime" (which maps onto partially reliable delivery with a SCTP_PR_SCTP_TTL policy RFC6458).  However, since multiplexing of Connections onto SCTP streams may happen, and would be hidden from the application, the Transport System requires a per- stream receiver buffer anyway, so this potential benefit is lost and the "partial flag" becomes unnecessary for the system. The problem of long messages either requiring large receiver-side buffers or getting in the way of multiplexing is addressed by message interleaving RFC8260, which is yet another reason why a receivers- side transport system supporting SCTP should implement this mechanism. </ins> 10. RFC-EDITOR: Please remove this section before publication.

Related discussion:
text: Starting to address This is an early review, to check if we like the structure. I'd also like help filling out the SCTP section!
I can also help with SCTP, which I would do in the same style that I suggest above (for TCP, in my example of "Abort") - also later.
We've updated Implementation mapping details for most protocols with , but we didn't tackle SCTP yet.
I'm fine with this being assigned to me. However, it's more than just writing the SCTP text. Here's the relevant part of what I wrote in PR : I don't suggest to delete much of the text that's there but definitely amend it with the RFC reference at least for what's covered in RFC 8303. There's a very direct line from this type of text in RFC 8303 to the original specs, so I do believe that should be helpful. That's (obviously) post-Montreal though!
NAME please send a PR along these lines.
LGTM modulo mwelzl changes.I think this is a good step forward. This said, I think we should describe things focusing on the transport's API call to be made (in line with the spec - that's why we have RFCs 8303 and 8304) rather than protocol internals. E.g., rather than saying that Abort on a TCP connection transmits a RST, I think we should simply say that Abort calls ABORT.TCP [RFC 8303, Section 4.1]. I can take care of these things, later. I'd still like to focus more on the API doc at this time.