Hi editors and co-authors, I had time to review the auth48 edits this morning, and have some proposed edits.
One preliminary meta-note about process: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9937-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 changes) FWIW, AFAICT this version does not include all auth48 changes. One change I noticed that it does not include is the following: rfc6937bis-21: using *[RFC6675] loss detection * MAY use the "pipe" algorithm as specified in [RFC6675] latest auth48 version: using *loss detection [RFC6675]* MAY use the "pipe" algorithm as specified in [RFC6675] Here are a few edits I'd like to request, tweaking the edits made during the auth48 process: --- rfc6937bis-21: using *[RFC6675] loss detection * MAY use the "pipe" algorithm as specified in [RFC6675] OLD: using *loss detection [RFC6675]* MAY use the "pipe" algorithm as specified in [RFC6675] NEW: using *[RFC6675]* *loss detection * MAY use the "pipe" algorithm as specified in [RFC6675] Rationale: IMHO the auth48 edit to employ the phrase "using loss detection [RFC6675]" implies that loss detection necessarily means [RFC6675], or is only defined in [RFC6675]. However, there are multiple widely-deployed loss recovery algorithms (notably [RFC6675] and [RFC8985]), and this paragraph we are specifically discussing how to adapt PRR's use of the "inflight" quantity to both of those algorithms, and in this sentence we are discussing how to adapt PRR's use of the "inflight" quantity to [RFC6675] loss detection, so it's important not to imply that loss detection is only defined in [RFC6675]. --- rfc6937bis-21: Finally, the sender uses DeliveredData, inflight, SafeACK, and other PRR *state* to compute SndCnt OLD: Finally, the sender uses DeliveredData, inflight, SafeACK, and other PRR *states* to compute SndCnt NEW: Finally, the sender uses DeliveredData, inflight, SafeACK, and other PRR *state* to compute SndCnt Rationale: IMHO the auth48 edit to use "states" implies that DeliveredData, inflight, SafeACK are names of "states" in a state machine. However, those are the names of "state" variables representing the "state" of the algorithm, not the names of "states" in a state machine. --- rfc6937bis-21: Earlier measurements (in section 6 of [RFC6675]) indicate that [RFC6675] significantly *outperforms [RFC6937] PRR* using only PRR-CRB OLD: Earlier measurements (in Section 6 of [RFC6675]) indicate that [RFC6675] significantly *outperforms PRR [RFC6937]* using only PRR-CRB NEW: Earlier measurements (in Section 6 of [RFC6675]) indicate that [RFC6675] significantly outperforms *the [RFC6937] version of PRR* using only PRR-CRB Rationale: IMHO the auth48 edit to use the phrase "outperforms PRR [RFC6937]" (a) implies that PRR is only described by [RFC6937], and (b) states that "[RFC6675] significantly outperforms PRR". Both implications are incorrect. For (a), there are two versions of PRR: one in the old [RFC6937] and one in the new [RFC9937], and we used the phrase "[RFC6937] PRR" to clarify which version we are talking about. For (b), the new version of PRR outperforms [RFC6675], which is why we are bothering to standardize it. :-) Note that in this passage, we are discussing differences between the [RFC6937] version of PRR and the new [RFC9937] version of PRR. So in this context it is important to clarify that PRR is *not* synonymous with [RFC6937]; there are two different versions of PRR: original [RFC6937] and new [RFC9937]. [RFC6675] outperforms one variant of the original [RFC6937] PRR, but not the new version of PRR in [RFC9937]. To my mind, the suggested NEW text clarifies that this passage is referring to the [RFC6937] PRR variant. --- rfc6937bis-21: response to *[RFC3168] ECN* OLD: response to *ECN [RFC3168]* NEW: response to *the* *[RFC3168] variant of ECN* Rationale: IMHO the auth48 edit to use the phrase "ECN [RFC3168]" implies that there is only one version of ECN. However, there are at least 3: classic [RFC3168], DCTCP [RFC8257], and L4S [RFC9331]. Here [RFC3168] is intended as an adjective clarifying which flavor of ECN we are discussing, not to indicate that ECN is only defined in [RFC3168]. --- Thanks! neal On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 3:47 AM Gorry Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/12/2025 23:08, Alanna Paloma wrote: > > Hi Authors and Gorry (AD)*, > > > > *Gorry - As the AD, please review and approve the deleted text in > Section 7. > > I have now read this and this is descriptive text about the properties. > > I APPROVE this change, > > Thanks, > > Gorry > > > > > For context, here is the authors’ explanation: > >> 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. > >> --> > >> We want to delete the last three sentences of this paragraph. They got > garbled and don't belong here anyhow. This restores the text as it was > RFC 6937. > >> OLD: > >> 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. The goal of PRR is to minimize > the opportunities to lose the self clock by smoothly controlling inflight > toward the target set by the congestion control. It is the congestion > control's responsibility to avoid a full queue, not PRR. > >> NEW: > >> (DELETED) > > > > See this diff file: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9937-auth48diff.html > > > > > > Authors - Thank you for your replies. We have updated as requested. > > > >> We could use some advice on keywords. Can you tell us the keywords > associated with RFC 5681 and RFC 6675? > > ) The keywords for RFCs 5681 and 6675 can be seen here: > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search_detail.php?rfc=5681&keywords=keyson > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search_detail.php?rfc=6675&keywords=keyson > > > >> 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. > >> --> > >> > >> Yes this is good, for this paragraph only. I'm confirming that the > rest of the document will continue to use PRR-SSRB and PRR-CRB. Correct? > > ) Yes, all other instances of “PRR-SSRB” and “PRR-CRB” will remain as is. > > > > --- > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9937.txt > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9937.pdf > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9937.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9937.xml > > > > The relevant diff files are posted here: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9937-diff.html (comprehensive > diff) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9937-auth48diff.html (all > AUTH48 changes) > > > > Please review the document carefully as documents do not change once > published as RFCs. > > > > We will await any further changes you may have and approvals from each > author and *Gorry (AD) prior to moving forward in the publication process. > > > > Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9937 > > > > Thank you, > > Alanna Paloma > > RFC Production Center > > > >> On Dec 1, 2025, at 11:51 AM, Matt Mathis <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Sorry, I missed reply-all. > >> > >> Our adjustments to you edits are inline below. > >> > >> On Fri, 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. > >> > >> Add PRR as an official abbreviation in the title > >> OLD: > >> <title abbrev="Proportional Rate Reduction"> Proportional Rate > Reduction</title> > >> NEW: > >> <title abbrev="PRR"> Proportional Rate Reduction (PRR)</title> > >> Update my email address > >> OLD: > >> <email>[email protected]</email> > >> NEW: > >> <email>[email protected]</email> > >> > >> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > >> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > >> > >> We could use some advice on keywords. Can you tell us the keywords > associated with RFC 5681 and RFC 6675? > >> Tentatively: > >> OLD: > >> <keyword>example</keyword> > >> NEW: > >> <keyword>loss recovery, SACK, self clock, fast retransmit, fast > recovery</keyword> > >> > >> > >> 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. > >> --> > >> No changes to the citation for Reno [RFC 5681] here or elsewhere. > Many other documents that use this citation. > >> > >> Reno was the genesis of modern Internet congestion control, and as such > it is the foundation of RFC 5681 and nearly all work in ICCRG, CCWG, and > much of TCPM. However, Reno was never properly described in any documents, > as a proposed standard or otherwise. If it had been, RFC 5681 (and all of > its predecessors) would almost certainly be described as updating Reno. > >> > >> > >> 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. > >> --> > >> > >> Yes this is good, for this paragraph only. I'm confirming that the > rest of the document will continue to use PRR-SSRB and PRR-CRB. Correct? > >> (Changes as above) > >> OLD: > >> 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. > >> > >> NEW: > >> 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]. > >> --> > >> Yes this is good. As above. > >> OLD: > >> 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). > >> > >> NEW: > >> 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. > >> > >> NO we want a different change 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. > >> --> > >> OLD: > >> 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. > >> NEW: > >> In recovery without SACK, DeliveredData is estimated to be > >> 1 SMSS on each received duplicate ACK (i.e. SND.UNA did not change). > >> When SND.UNA advances (i.e a full or partial ACK) > >> DeliveredData is the change in SND.UNA, minus 1 SMSS for > >> each preceding duplicate ACKs. > >> New edit, XML line 331, second paragraph of section 6.2. (This is a > revision of an rfc-editor change.) > >> OLD: > >> (signed) change in SACK. > >> NEW: > >> signed change in quantity of data marked SACKed in the scoreboard. > >> > >> 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. > >> --> > >> We want to delete the last three sentences of this paragraph. They got > garbled and don't belong here anyhow. This restores the text as it was > RFC 6937. > >> OLD: > >> 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. The goal of PRR is to minimize > the opportunities to lose the self clock by smoothly controlling inflight > toward the target set by the congestion control. It is the congestion > control's responsibility to avoid a full queue, not PRR. > >> NEW: > >> (DELETED) > >> > >> > >> 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>. > >> > >> --> > >> > >> Thank you, Free access is goot! > >> > >> 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. > >> --> > >> Yes, We got that. > >> > >> 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) > >> Consistent use of CDN, FACK and RACK-TLP are good. > >> > >> > >> > >> 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) > >> -->Note that "round-trip time" is only used for the very high level > description of PRR. A round trip, as marked by an event (the arrival of an > ACK, rather than the passing of time), is correct and not abbreviated RTT. > No changes. > >> > >> > >> > >> 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 > >> --> > >> No changes please: The capitalized terms are proper names and used to > refer to the algorithms themselves. Lower case is used in running prose to > refer to packets triggered by the algorithms. e.g. the fast retransmit is > the packet triggered by the Fast Retransmit algorithm. > >> > >> > >> > >> 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. > >> --> > >> > >> We concur. Inclusivity is important. > >> > >> > >> Thank you. > >> > >> Alanna Paloma and Sandy Ginoza > >> RFC Production Center > >> > >> End of markups, and Thank You! > >> > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> --MM-- > >> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use > force to apply it to others. > >> ------------------------------------------- > >> Matt Mathis (Email is best) > >> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 <(412)%20654-7529> please leave a message > if you must call. > >> > >> > > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
