Original text:
implementation should not aggressively close connections in these scenarios. <del> If the Protocol Stack includes a transport protocol that also supports multipath connectivity with migration support, the Transport Services implementation should also inform the Protocol Instance of potentially new paths that become permissible based on the Selection Properties passed by the application.  A protocol can then establish new subflows over new paths while an active path is still available or, if migration is supported, also after a break has been detected, and should attempt to tear down subflows over paths that are no longer used.  The Transport Services API provides an interface to set a multipath policy that indicates when and how different paths should </del>  be used.  However, detailed handling of these policies is still <del> implementation-specific.  The decision about when to create a new </del>  path or to announce a new path or set of paths to the remote endpoint, e.g., in the form of additional IP addresses, is <del> implementation-specific or could be be supported by future API extensions.  If the Protocol Stack includes a transport protocol that does not support multipath, but does support migrating between paths, the update to the set of available paths can trigger the connection to be migrated. In case of Pooled Connections pooled-connections, the transport system may add connections over new paths or different protocols to the pool if permissible based on the multipath policy and Selection </del>  Properties.  In case a previously used path becomes unavailable, the transport system may disconnect all connections that require this path, but should not disconnect the pooled connection object exposed

Reviewer comments:
Note, the change to the API draft here is a purely editorial detail that I fixed here in passing: the multipath selection property was renamed and this fixes the text referring to it.
"what we discussed" - you mean in , where I say that I stumbled over a sentence? This PR does update that sentence (simply removing "with migration support" from it because any multipath protocol can do that).
no, i meant what we discussed at the interim about using the handover, interactive, aggregate terminology. but i saw that this was not so easily done and we are all happy with your solution, so all good :)
Before distinguishing between protocols that do "multipath" and "migrating between paths", it might help to define these terms. This is tripping is up in QUIC, and IIRC the original "Multipath TCP" was pretty much the migration case. Something like, "In this section we distinguish between 'multipath' protocols and protocols that allow migration between paths. The first means ..."
This is in section 7.2 of taps-impl.
We define multipath (by policy in section 6.1.7 handover, interactive, aggregate) in the API doc. Section 4.2 in Implementation should use these definitions.
I wanted to fix this now, but stumbled over the following sentence in the implementation draft: This talks about the protocol below the transport services system; do multipath-supporting protocols with no migration support exist? I struggle to imagine a scheduler that wouldn't make this happen... e.g. lowest latency scheduling, but with the exception: if a path becomes completely unavailable, keep going? :-) Looking at the three policies in section 6.1.7 of our API, clearly, migration should work with all of them (and "Handover" is limited in that it doesn't do anything else, but it's gotta be a subset of the others anyway, I'd say). Am I missing something? Just checking...
I think the example of no migration support would be a multipath protocol that is not able to add new paths, so SCTP without support for the ADD_ADDR extension perhaps? Not sure this is a case we need to worry about though...
Ah, a multipath protocol that doesn't do multipath :-)
Well, it can do multipath with the paths you give it from the beginning :) Possibly something else was intended with the text from the beginning, but this is what I could think of...
Looks good to me!Thanks for fixing the nits!

Revised text:
implementation should not aggressively close connections in these scenarios.  <ins> If the Protocol Stack includes a transport protocol that supports multipath connectivity, the Transport Services implementation should also inform the Protocol Instance of potentially new paths that become permissible based on the "multipath" Selection Property and the "multipath-policy" Connection Property choices made by the application.  A protocol can then establish new subflows over new paths while an active path is still available or, if migration is supported, also after a break has been detected, and should attempt to tear down subflows over paths that are no longer used.  The Transport Services API's Connection Property "multipath-policy" allows an application to indicate when and how different paths should </ins> be used.  However, detailed handling of these policies is still  <ins> implementation-specific.  For example, if the "multipath" Selection Property is set to "active", the decision about when to create a new </ins> path or to announce a new path or set of paths to the remote endpoint, e.g., in the form of additional IP addresses, is  <ins> implementation-specific.  If the Protocol Stack includes a transport protocol that does not support multipath, but does support migrating between paths, the update to the set of available paths can trigger the connection to be migrated. In case of Pooled Connections pooled-connections, the Transport Services implementation may add connections over new paths to the pool if permissible based on the multipath policy and Selection </ins> Properties.  In case a previously used path becomes unavailable, the transport system may disconnect all connections that require this path, but should not disconnect the pooled connection object exposed