--- 1/draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-10.txt	2018-08-31 09:13:18.680645067 -0700
+++ 2/draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-11.txt	2018-08-31 09:13:18.712645839 -0700
@@ -2,21 +2,21 @@
 Network Working Group                                         N. Khademi
 Internet-Draft                                                  M. Welzl
 Intended status: Experimental                         University of Oslo
 Expires: March 4, 2019                                       G. Armitage
                                                                  Netflix
                                                             G. Fairhurst
                                                   University of Aberdeen
                                                          August 31, 2018
 
                  TCP Alternative Backoff with ECN (ABE)
-               draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-10
+               draft-ietf-tcpm-alternativebackoff-ecn-11
 
 Abstract
 
    Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanisms allow for burst tolerance
    while enforcing short queues to minimise the time that packets spend
    enqueued at a bottleneck.  This can cause noticeable performance
    degradation for TCP connections traversing such a bottleneck,
    especially if there are only a few flows or their bandwidth-delay-
    product is large.  The reception of a Congestion Experienced (CE) ECN
    mark indicates that an AQM mechanism is used at the bottleneck, and
@@ -127,23 +127,24 @@
    the strict requirement that ECN CE signals be treated identically to
    inferred packet loss have been relaxed [RFC8311].  This document
    therefore defines a new sender-side-only congestion control response,
    called "ABE" (Alternative Backoff with ECN).  ABE improves TCP's
    average throughput when routers use AQM controlled buffers that allow
    only for short queues.
 
 2.  Definitions
 
    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
-   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
-   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119
-   [RFC2119][RFC8174] .
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
+   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
+   14 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in
+   all capitals, as shown here.
 
 3.  Specification
 
    This specification changes the congestion control algorithm of an
    ECN-Capable TCP transport protocol by changing the TCP sender
    response to feedback from the TCP receiver that indicates reception
    of a CE-marked packet, i.e., receipt of a packet with the ECN-Echo
    flag (defined in [RFC3168]) set, following the process defined in
    [RFC8311].