Looks good to me. I approve the latest draft. On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 7:59 PM Neal Cardwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Alanna, > > Thanks! Looks great to me. > > I approve of this draft posted today, December 10. > > Everybody else, please review and chime in. > > Thanks! > neal > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 8:01 PM Alanna Paloma < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Neal, >> >> The files have been updated 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) >> >> Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9937 >> >> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page >> below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. >> >> Thank you, >> Alanna Paloma >> RFC Production Center >> >> >> >> > On Dec 10, 2025, at 3:59 PM, Neal Cardwell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > 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]
