%% You should probably cite rfc7267 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-20,
    number =    {draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-20},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw/20/},
    author =    {Luca Martini and Matthew Bocci and Florin Balus},
    title =     {{Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment Pseudowires}},
    pagetotal = 23,
    year =      2013,
    month =     dec,
    day =       2,
    abstract =  {RFC5254 describes the service provider requirements for extending the reach of pseudowires (PW) across multiple Packet Switched Network domains. A Multi-Segment PW is defined as a set of two or more contiguous PW segments that behave and function as a single point- to-point PW. This document describes extensions to the PW control protocol to dynamically place the segments of the multi-segment pseudowire among a set of Provider Edge (PE) routers. This document also updates RFC6073 as follows: it updates the value of the length field of the PW Switching Point PE Sub-TLV Type 0x06 to 14.},
}