Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 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. --> 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. --> 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]. --> 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. 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. --> 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. --> 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>. --> 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. --> 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) 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) --> 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 --> 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. --> Thank you. Alanna Paloma and Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center 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 -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
