All, Gorry - We are awaiting your word on the phrasing of “the [RFC3168] variant of ECN”. Please let us know if/how this should be updated.
Authors - We have noted Neal’s and Yuchung’s approvals on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9937 Once we receive word from Gorry and approval from Nandita, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Thank you, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Dec 11, 2025, at 9:09 AM, Yuchung Cheng <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 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]
