Hi Alanna,
I had 4 minor editing requests based on the December 3 version of the text:
--- in "4. Changes Relative to RFC 6937":
rfc6937bis-21:
using PRR for cwnd reductions for [RFC3168] ECN
OLD:
using PRR for cwnd reductions for ECN [RFC3168]
NEW:
using PRR for cwnd reductions for 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].
I'd suggest using the "the [RFC3168] variant of ECN" phrase that is
currently in Section "11.2. Fairness".
---- in 6.2. Per-ACK Steps
rfc6937bis-21:
Finally, the sender uses DeliveredData, inflight, SafeACK, and other
PRR state to compute
SndCnt, a local variable indicating exactly how
many bytes should be sent in response to each ACK,
and then uses SndCnt to update cwnd
OLD:
Finally, the sender uses DeliveredData, inflight, SafeACK, and other
PRR state to compute
SndCnt, a local variable indicating exactly how
many bytes should be sent in response to each ACK
and then uses SndCnt to update cwnd
NEW:
Finally, the sender uses DeliveredData, inflight, SafeACK, and other
PRR state to compute
SndCnt, a local variable indicating exactly how
many bytes should be sent in response to each ACK,
and then uses SndCnt to update cwnd
Rationale: the phrase "a local variable indicating exactly how many bytes
should be sent in response to each ACK" is a parenthetic or non-restrictive
clause, so AFAIK should be enclosed with commas before and after. (Strunk &
White Elements of Style rule: "Enclose parenthetic expressions between
commas".)
--- in 8. Examples
rfc6937bis-21:
This section illustrates the PRR and [RFC6675] algorithms
OLD:
This section illustrates the PRR and [RFC6675] algorithm
NEW:
This section illustrates the PRR and [RFC6675] algorithms
Rationale:
PRR and [RFC6675] are two different algorithms.
--- in 14.2. Informative References
rfc6937bis-21:
[FACK] Mathis, M. and J. Mahdavi, "Forward Acknowledgment:
Refining TCP Congestion Control", ACM SIGCOMM
SIGCOMM1996, August 1996,
OLD:
[FACK] Mathis, M. and J. Mahdavi, "Forward Acknowledgment:
Refining TCP Congestion Control", ACM SIGCOMM Computer
Communication Review, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 281-291,
NEW:
[FACK] Mathis, M. and J. Mahdavi, "Forward Acknowledgment:
Refining TCP Congestion Control", SIGCOMM '96: Conference
Proceedings on Applications, Technologies, Architectures,
and Protocols for Computer Communications, pp. 281-291,
Rationale: IMHO it's very useful/important to indicate that a paper is a
SIGCOMM paper, so we should not drop the fact that the FACK paper was in
SIGCOMM '96 (the list of SIGCOMM '96 papers is here:
https://dl.acm.org/doi/proceedings/10.1145/248156 ). I'm suggesting the
"NEW" text for indicating the paper was in SIGCOMM '96 based on the fact
that [Hoe96Startup] was also in SIGCOMM '96; so I've just borrowed the
SIGCOMM '96 citation text from [Hoe96Startup], which looks like:
[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>.
(The confusion arises because SIGCOMM papers can be cited in two ways: (1)
as in the SIGCOMM 'XY conference proceedings, or (2) as an issue of ACM
SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review.)
Thanks!
neal
On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 5:14 PM Alanna Paloma <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 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 <(412)%20654-7529> 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 <(412)%20654-7529> please leave a
> message if you must call.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
