All, With Nandita’s approval, we have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9937
Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process. We will move this document forward in the publication process at this time. Best regards, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Dec 15, 2025, at 11:40 AM, Nandita Dukkipati <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks, this version looks great to me. > > I approve of this draft posted today, 15th December, '25. > > Best, > Nandita > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 11:17 AM Gorry Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote: > On 15/12/2025 19:07, Neal Cardwell wrote: >> Hi Alanna, >> >> Thanks! Looks good to me. I approve of this draft posted today, Dec 15. >> >> Thanks! >> neal >> > Me too, this looks good, thanks. > I approve this draft posted today, Dec 15. > Gorry >> On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 2:05 PM Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Gorry and Neal, >>> >>> Thank you for your replies. We have updated the files accordingly. >>> >>> >>>> 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]. >>>> 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]. >>>> >>>> - RFC-Ed: Pleaase remove the reference to [VCC] from the references >>>> >>> section. >>> >>> ) FYI, we have added [RFC9743] as an Informative Reference. Please let us >>> know if it should be a Normative Reference instead. >>> >>> >>> 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 approval from Nandita prior to moving this document forward >>> in the publication process. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Alanna Paloma >>> RFC Production Center >>> >>> >>>> On Dec 15, 2025, at 9:50 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <[email protected]> >>>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> RFC-Ed, as per my previous email, here is the consolidated change list, >>>> >>> please go-ahead and apply these changes: >>> >>>> 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]. >>>> >>>> 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]. >>>> 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]. >>>> >>>> - RFC-Ed: Pleaase remove the reference to [VCC] from the references >>>> >>> section. >>> >>>> 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]. >>>> -END- >>>> 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 > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
