Change:
consider protocols identical only if they are of the same type and version.  For example, the same version of TLS running over two different transport protocol stacks are considered equivalent, <del> whereas TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3 I-D.ietf-tls-tls13 are not considered equivalent. </del> <ins> whereas TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3 RFC8446 are not considered equivalent. 4.2.4. By default, all stored properties of the Implementation are shared within a process, such as cached protocol state, cached path state, and heuristics.  This provides efficiency and convenience for the application, since the Transport System Implementation can automatically optimize behavior. There are several reasons, however, that an application might want to isolate some Connections within a single process.  These reasons include: Privacy concerns about re-using cached protocol state that can lead to linkability.  Sensitive state may include TLS session state RFC8446 and HTTP cookies RFC6265. Privacy concerns about allowing Connections to multiplex together, which can tell a Remote Endpoint that all of the Connections are coming from the same application (for example, when Connections are multiplexed HTTP/2 or QUIC streams). Performance concerns about Connections introducing head-of-line blocking due to multiplexing or needing to share state on a single thread. The Transport Services API SHOULD allow applications to explicitly define Connection Groups that force separation of Cached State and Protocol Stacks.  For example, a web browser application might use Connection Groups with separate caches for different tabs in the browser to decrease linkability. The interface to specify these Groups MAY expose fine-grained tuning for which properties and cached state is allowed to be shared with other Connections.  For example, an application might want to allow sharing TCP Fast Open cookies across groups, but not TLS session state. </ins> 5.

Discussion:
Alternate proposal to address (old PR was "Add CacheContext to architecture and API", ) Define explicit Connection Groups as a way to define caching boundaries Update TLS 1.3 references to RFC 8446
This is a light-weight approach, but seems a little heavy-handed. I thought connection groups were a tool to model multi-streaming. With this PR, they become a fuzzy thing between cache context and multi-streaming abstraction. This may be the better choice, but ist definitely an Architecture decision. I liked the cache original context more.
The result of the interim discussion was that we didn't like a separate cache context object as much. Based on the discussion, we need some abstraction to say "these connections don't share state with the rest of the connections in my process, and can share between one another". The Group is a convenient way to do this. Note that you can just have one connection in its own group even. In some ways, it solves a lot of problems—it isn't sensical to say that connections in a Group can not share cache state. It I multiplex, I'm by default sharing TLS state. So if we have a separate cache context, we'll need some prohibition that you can't have multiple connections in a group have different cache contexts. Using the group as the way to define the boundary solves this.
I agree that it solves a lot of Problems and is an easy-to-use solution. The more I think about it, the more I like it. If we agree that we want to go down this road, definitely a +1 from my side modulo NAME comments. Still, if we land this one, we need to add some means of manually managing connection groups to the API in the next round.
NAME please re-review!
NAME I updated the text to avoid the implication about cloning. I didn't intend to change the behavior for Clone() being required to get multiplexing. I was more thinking that the use of the cache could be managed implicitly, while still requiring calling Clone() to actually multiplex. But, for now, I removed the text about implicit groups. Please check that this resolves your concerns!
Thanks for the reviews and input!
share NAME concerns, approving so we can submit a draft to discuss in prague...Looks good to me!LGTM! Thanks for the fixThanks – Looks good to me!