Hi Matt, Thank you for your approval. It’s been noted on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9937
We will await approvals from Neal, Yuchung, and Nandita prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. Best regards, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Dec 10, 2025, at 7:54 AM, Matt Mathis <[email protected]> wrote: > > I approve of the draft posed Dec 3rd. > > Everybody else, please review and chime in. > > 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 please leave a message if you must call. > > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 12:26 PM Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> > wrote: > Hi Neal and Gorry, > > Thank you for your replies. Gorry’s approval has been noted on the AUTH48 > status page: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9937 > > > 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] > > ) To clarify, the -auth48diff file only highlights changes after a document > has moved into AUTH48 state. The change you noted was not highlighted in the > -auth48diff file (it's now highlighted as we have reverted our initial edit > per your request) because it was made by editors prior to the document > entering AUTH48 state. > > To see all edits made, including those made before and during AUTH48 state, > see this file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9937-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > > We have updated the files per your request. > > 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) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9937-lastdiff.html (last version to > this one) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9937-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between > last version and this) > > We will await any further changes you may have and approvals from each author > 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 3, 2025, at 6:29 AM, Neal Cardwell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 please leave a message if you must call. > > >> > > >> > > > > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
