Original text:
6.1. <del> Appendix A.1 of I-D.ietf-taps-minset explains, using primitives that are described in RFC8303 and RFC8304, how to implement changing the following protocol properties of an established connection with TCP and UDP.  Below, we amend this description for other protocols (if applicable): </del>  <del> Relative niceness: for SCTP, this can be done using the primitive CONFIGURE_STREAM_SCHEDULER.SCTP described in section 4 of RFC8303. Timeout for aborting Connection: for SCTP, this can be done using the primitive CHANGE_TIMEOUT.SCTP described in section 4 of RFC8303. Abort timeout to suggest to the Remote Endpoint: for TCP, this can be done using the primitive CHANGE_TIMEOUT.TCP described in section 4 of RFC8303. </del>  Retransmission threshold before excessive retransmission <del> notification: for TCP, this can be done using ERROR.TCP described in section 4 of RFC8303. </del>  Required minimum coverage of the checksum for receiving: for UDP- Lite, this can be done using the primitive SET_MIN_CHECKSUM_COVERAGE.UDP-Lite described in section 4 of RFC8303.  Connection group transmission scheduler: for SCTP, this can be done using the primitive SET_STREAM_SCHEDULER.SCTP described in section 4 of RFC8303.  It may happen that the application attempts to set a Protocol Property which does not apply to the actually chosen protocol.  In this case, the implementation should fail gracefully, i.e., it may

Reviewer comments:
Several small updates, mostly to clean things up a bit, and align property names and such.
NAME - I think you're wrong: my understanding (and also the way the text is written - otherwise we'd have to change it in the API draft) was that Connection Properties can (and should) also be set on Preconnections, to give as much input as possible for Connection establishment. In the API draft, the Selection Properties in Section 5.2 can only be used on Preconnections: you can't ask for congestion control after establishment. You can't say that you'd rather have multistreaming support after establishment. But that doesn't exclude Connection properties from being usable earlier. Required minimum checksum coverage could influence choosing UDP-Lite vs. UDP. Bounds on Send or Receive Rate could influence the interface choice. The capacity profile could influence various things (and no, there isn't a matching Selection Property now - there is a per-Message override). So... I think that either you're wrong, or I'm missing something and the API draft heavily lags behind a decision that was made. I hope not!
NAME The API drafts says: I interpret this as only the Selection Properties influence selection and the Connection properties are used to further configure the connections according to user preferences. Otherwise what is the difference between them?
If you interpret it as you do, I think the text isn't clear enough (indeed it isn't super clear - in particular, "eventually established" is misleading IMO). Though, note that it says that Connection properties can also be used later. Regarding the difference between them: Selection Properties only make sense for Preconnections.
NAME - sorry lost this thread. But I saw that you have started cleaning up some Connection properties that had mixed Connection and Selection properties up in the API draft. Does it mean that we are now in synch and agree that only Selection properties are used in the selection and Connection properties are used for configuration (both during establisment and also after the connection setup).
NAME the other PR means nothing about what I said here: it only tried to address issue which is about a wording inconsistency in a specific property. You say that Connection properties can also be used during establishment - if you agree with allowing this, then why not allow to configure them as early as possible and allow them to influence selection? What's bad about having more information available that can guide the selection process?
NAME the problem is that the Connection properties are not expressed in a way suitable for selection. If they should also be used for Selection they would have to be reworked to be of type Preference. Otherwise I do not know what they mean for selection. What does it mean if I pick say a particular connection group transmission scheduler? Is it required or preferred? Most connection properties also do not look very useful to me for selection so in case there are some we need I think it would be simpler to just define a matching selection property.
NAME we're only discussing whether it's allowed to use them as additional input or not. I agree, some (like the scheduler choice) don't seem useful, but some do... generally we may not have good guidance on how they should be used by an implementation, but giving the system freedom to use as many inputs as possible is probably a good thing. Regarding the type, require/prefer//ignore/avoid/prohibit obviously works fine for a "wishlist" of boolean character: having something, or not having it. The selection properties are generally like that - except "Interface Instance or Type" and "Provisioning Domain Instance or Type" which are, well... wishlist-collections. Consider the capacity profile. Surely configuring this early can be useful input - e.g. if someone picks low latency / interactive, you may even want to put this traffic on a specific network interface! But if you'd want to make a copy of the capacity profile as a "proper" selection property, how would you do it? Apply require/prefer/ignore/avoid/prohibit for each of its values? Then I could say "prefer" low latency/non-interactive but "avoid" low latency/non-interactive, which would surely be odd. Apply the qualifier to the whole thing? Then it's about, e.g. "avoiding" to use a capacity profile at all. That's odd as well. I think it's in the nature of the current selection properties that they merely say "I want to be able to do this, and this is how important it is to me", which is different from configuring something. That's also why, as written, they simply wouldn't work for later connection configuration. Connection properties really are about configuring something, but I still say that being able to use them as early input is good. I agree that the implementation isn't super clear as they don't come with a require/prefer/... etc. qualifier, but then we just offer some freedom to implementers.
NAME I just pushed a commit that updates the selection and connection properties text, removing "connection" almost everywhere, but adding a disclaimer in the beginning that says that connection properties should be configured as early as possible because they can influence decisions made by the implementation, and "In the remainder of this document, we only refer to Selection Properties because they are the more typical case." Frankly I'm not sure this is better... but it does remove most of the "selection and connection" double mentions that you pointed out.
Fixed up branch building and resolved merge conflicts. I'll merge this in later today before the posting deadline.
Cool thanks! Sorry if I messed something up
As discussed in
Thank you for updating this – looks good! just needs s/send-params/msg-properties/ and merging

Revised text:
6.1.  <ins> Appendix A.1 of I-D.ietf-taps-minset explains, using primitives from RFC8303 and RFC8304, how to implement changing some of the following protocol properties of an established connection with TCP and UDP. Below, we amend this description for other protocols (if applicable) and extend it with Connection Properties that are not contained in I- D.ietf-taps-minset. </ins>  <ins> Notification of excessive retransmissions: TODO </ins> Retransmission threshold before excessive retransmission  <ins> notification: TODO; for TCP, this can be done using ERROR.TCP described in section 4 of RFC8303. Notification of ICMP soft error message arrival: TODO </ins> Required minimum coverage of the checksum for receiving: for UDP- Lite, this can be done using the primitive SET_MIN_CHECKSUM_COVERAGE.UDP-Lite described in section 4 of RFC8303. <ins> Priority (Connection): TODO; for SCTP, this can be done using the primitive CONFIGURE_STREAM_SCHEDULER.SCTP described in section 4 of RFC8303. Timeout for aborting Connection: for SCTP, this can be done using the primitive CHANGE_TIMEOUT.SCTP described in section 4 of RFC8303. </ins> Connection group transmission scheduler: for SCTP, this can be done using the primitive SET_STREAM_SCHEDULER.SCTP described in section 4 of RFC8303. <ins> Maximum message size concurrent with Connection establishment: TODO Maximum Message size before fragmentation or segmentation: TODO Maximum Message size on send: TODO Maximum Message size on receive: TODO Capacity Profile: TODO Bounds on Send or Receive Rate: TODO TCP-specific Property: User Timeout: for TCP, this can be configured using the primitive CHANGE_TIMEOUT.TCP described in section 4 of RFC8303. </ins> It may happen that the application attempts to set a Protocol Property which does not apply to the actually chosen protocol.  In this case, the implementation should fail gracefully, i.e., it may