>> 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 <tel:(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=5681&keywords=keyson>
>>>>>>
https://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search_detail.php?rfc=6675&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 <tel:(412)%20654-7529> please
leave a message if you must call.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
