On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 5:41 AM Gorry Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/12/2025 16:54, Alanna Paloma wrote: > > 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 > > All, > > Sorry, for this late response !!! > > I have reviewed the changes in the final updated text in: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9937.txt Thanks, Gorry! > > Becasue these are both Standards Track document, we ought to be careful > in the way RFC3168 is cited. I would like to make changes. > > I propose: > 1. Section 4, CURRENT: > such as for Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) as > described in [RFC3168]. > > NEW: > such as for Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) as > specified in [RFC3168]. > Thanks! The new version sounds great. > --- > 2. Section 4, CURRENT: > However, note that using PRR for cwnd reductions > for the [RFC3168] variant of ECN has been observed, with some > approaches to Active Queue Management (AQM), to cause an excess cwnd > reduction during ECN-triggered congestion episodes, as noted in > [VCC]. > > DELETE sentence: > - Looking carefully at the reference and the way the text currentlky > cites this, my recommendation would be to delete this sentence and > remove the reference to [VCC]. If alternatively there was a clear > consensus in the working group that this topic needs to be included, > please could this be replaced by: > There can be interactions between using PRR and > approaches to Active Queue Management (AQM) and ECN, guidance on the > development and assessment of congestion control > mechanisms is provided in [RFC9743]. > > (( Please see my note below about the original reference. )) > This reference to [VCC] is something we added in response to Michael Welzl's email to the TCPM mailing list on Oct 18, 2020 (thread: "Updating Proportional Rate Reduction RFC6937 to PS"). In his email he mentioned both (a) the issue of double cwnd reductions with PRR in some of his tests in drop-tail non-ECN bottlenecks, and (b) that this phenomenon had been noted in the VCC Sigcomm ’16 paper in the context of RFC3168 ECN bottlenecks. So we added this sentence about VCC in rev 09 of the draft, which we posted on July 21, 2024: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-prr-rfc6937bis-09 IMHO it is worth including this sentence, because there are real and fundamental trade-offs in answering the question of how quickly to reduce cwnd once congestion is detected, particularly when it comes to cases with RFC3168 ECN (where there are no implicit window reductions from losses). So I would suggest keeping some version of this passage. I like Gorry's suggested text, though I'd suggest a semicolon rather than a comma before "guidance" (since both sides of the punctuation are complete sentences), and I'd suggest keeping the leading "However" for readability. I'd suggest this variation on Gorry's text: NEW: However, there can be interactions between using PRR and approaches to Active Queue Management (AQM) and ECN; guidance on the development and assessment of congestion control mechanisms is provided in [RFC9743]. > 3. Section 11.2, CURRENT: > PRR only operates > during a congestion control response episode, such as fast recovery > or response to the [RFC3168] variant of ECN, > NEW: > PRR only operates > during a congestion control response episode, such as fast recovery > or when there is a step reduction in the cwnd from the TCP ECN > reaction defined in [RFC3168]. > Looks good to me. Thanks, Gorry! neal > > --- > > I'm sorry that I missed this in my earlier review. > > Best wishes, > Gorry > (WIT AD). > > >> 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 <(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]
