Greetings, We do not believe we have heard from you regarding this document's readiness for publication. Please review our previous messages describing the AUTH48 process and containing our document-specific questions.
We will wait to hear from you before continuing with the publication process. The AUTH48 status page for this document is located here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9937 Thank you, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Nov 21, 2025, at 3:50 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following questions, which are also in the source file. > > 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] "Reno" is not used in RFC 5681, except in titles in the > References section. Please review and let us know if/how this citation > should be updated. Note that there are multiple occurrences of this > throughout the document. > > Original: > Congestion control algorithms like Reno [RFC5681] and CUBIC [RFC9438] > are built on the conceptual foundation of this self clock process. > --> > > > 3) <!--[rfced] To have the abbreviation directly match the expanded form, > may we update this text as follows? > > Original: > As a baseline, to be cautious when there may be > considerable congestion, PRR uses its Conservative Reduction Bound > (PRR-CRB), which is strictly packet conserving. When recovery seems > to be progressing well, PRR uses its Slow Start Reduction Bound (PRR- > SSRB), which is more aggressive than PRR-CRB by at most one segment > per ACK. > > Perhaps: > As a baseline, to be cautious when there may be > considerable congestion, PRR uses its Conservative Reduction Bound > (CRB), which is strictly packet conserving. When recovery seems > to be progressing well, PRR uses its Slow Start Reduction Bound (SSRB), > which is more aggressive than PRR-CRB by at most one segment > per ACK. > --> > > > 4) <!--[rfced] To avoid awkward hyphenation of an RFC citation, may we > rephrase the latter part of this sentence as follows? > > Original: > Since [RFC6937] was written, PRR has also been adapted to perform > multiplicative window reduction for non-loss based congestion control > algorithms, such as for [RFC3168] style Explicit Congestion > Notification (ECN). > > Perhaps: > Since [RFC6937] was written, PRR has also been adapted to perform > multiplicative window reduction for non-loss-based congestion control > algorithms, such as for Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) as > described in [RFC3168]. > --> > > > 5) <!--[rfced] To improve readability, may we add parentheses in this > sentence? Please review and let us know if thus suggested update > retains the intended meaning. > > Original: > In recovery without SACK, DeliveredData is estimated to be > 1 SMSS on receiving a duplicate ACK, and on a subsequent partial or > full ACK DeliveredData is the change in SND.UNA, minus 1 SMSS for > each preceding duplicate ACK. > > Perhaps: > In recovery without SACK, DeliveredData is estimated to be > 1 SMSS on receiving a duplicate ACK (and the change is in SND.UNA on > a subsequent partial or full ACK DeliveredData), minus 1 SMSS for > each preceding duplicate ACK. > --> > > > 6) <!-- [rfced] May we clarify "[RFC6675] 'half window of silence'" as > follows? > > Original: > The [RFC6675] "half window of silence" may temporarily > reduce queue pressure when congestion control does not reduce the > congestion window entering recovery to avoid further losses. > > Perhaps: > The "half window of silence" that a SACK-based Conservative Loss > Recovery Algorithm [RFC6675] experiences may temporarily > reduce queue pressure when congestion control does not reduce the > congestion window entering recovery to avoid further losses. > --> > > > 7) <!--[rfced] FYI - We found free access versions of these references in > the ACM Digital Library and added DOIs and URLs to these references. > > Current: > [Flach2016policing] > Flach, T., Papageorge, P., Terzis, A., Pedrosa, L., Cheng, > Y., Karim, T., Katz-Bassett, E., and R. Govindan, "An > Internet-Wide Analysis of Traffic Policing", SIGCOMM '16: > Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGCOMM Conference, pp. > 468-482, DOI 10.1145/2934872.2934873, August 2016, > <https://doi.org/10.1145/2934872.2934873>. > > [Hoe96Startup] > Hoe, J., "Improving the Start-up Behavior of a Congestion > Control Scheme for TCP", SIGCOMM '96: Conference > Proceedings on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, > and Protocols for Computer Communications, pp. 270-280, > DOI 10.1145/248157.248180, August 1996, > <https://doi.org/10.1145/248157.248180>. > > > [IMC11] Dukkipati, N., Mathis, M., Cheng, Y., and M. Ghobadi, > "Proportional Rate Reduction for TCP", IMC '11: > Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet > Measurement Conference, pp. 155-170, > DOI 10.1145/2068816.2068832, November 2011, > <https://doi.org/10.1145/2068816.2068832>. > > [Jacobson88] > Jacobson, V., "Congestion Avoidance and Control", > Symposium proceedings on Communications architectures and > protocols (SIGCOMM '88), pp. 314-329, > DOI 10.1145/52325.52356, August 1988, > <https://doi.org/10.1145/52325.52356>. > > [Savage99] Savage, S., Cardwell, N., Wetherall, D., and T. Anderson, > "TCP Congestion Control with a Misbehaving Receiver", ACM > SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. > 71-78, DOI 10.1145/505696.505704, October 1999, > <https://doi.org/10.1145/505696.505704>. > > [VCC] Cronkite-Ratcliff, B., Bergman, A., Vargaftik, S., Ravi, > M., McKeown, N., Abraham, I., and I. Keslassy, > "Virtualized Congestion Control (Extended Version)", > SIGCOMM '16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGCOMM > Conference pp. 230-243, DOI 10.1145/2934872.2934889, > August 2016, <http://www.ee.technion.ac.il/~isaac/p/ > sigcomm16_vcc_extended.pdf>. > > --> > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] Some author comments are present in the XML. Please confirm > that no updates related to these comments are outstanding. Note that the > comments will be deleted prior to publication. > --> > > > 9) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviations > > a) FYI - We have added expansions for the following abbreviations > per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each > expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. > > Content Delivery Network (CDN) > Forward Acknowledgment (FACK) > Recent Acknowledgment Tail Loss Probe (RACK-TLP) > > > b) Both the expansion and the acronym for the following term are used > throughout the document. Would you like to update to use the expansion upon > first usage and the acronym for the rest of the document? > > round-trip time (RTT) > --> > > > 10) <!--[rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to > be used inconsistently. May we update each to the form on the right? > > Fast Retransmit > fast retransmit > limited transmit > Limited Transmit > --> > > > 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the > online Style Guide > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> > and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature > typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. > > Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should > still be reviewed as a best practice. > --> > > > Thank you. > > Alanna Paloma and Sandy Ginoza > RFC Production Center > > > > On Nov 21, 2025, at 3:46 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2025/11/21 > > RFC Author(s): > -------------- > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > your approval. > > Planning your review > --------------------- > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > * RFC Editor questions > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > follows: > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > > * Content > > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > - contact information > - references > > * Copyright notices and legends > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). > > * Semantic markup > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > > * Formatted output > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > Submitting changes > ------------------ > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties > include: > > * your coauthors > > * [email protected] (the RPC team) > > * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > > * [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list > to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > list: > > * More info: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > > * The archive itself: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you > have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, > [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and > its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > > An update to the provided XML file > — OR — > An explicit list of changes in this format > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > OLD: > old text > > NEW: > new text > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit > list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, > and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in > the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. > > > Approving for publication > -------------------------- > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating > that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. > > > Files > ----- > > The files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9937.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9937.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9937.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9937.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9937-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9937-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9937-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9937 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC 9937 (draft-ietf-tcpm-prr-rfc6937bis-21) > > Title : Proportional Rate Reduction > Author(s) : M. Mathis, N. Cardwell, Y. Cheng, N. Dukkipati > WG Chair(s) : Yoshifumi Nishida, Michael Tüxen > > Area Director(s) : Gorry Fairhurst, Mike Bishop > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
