%% You should probably cite draft-aa-ldp-link-shut-01 instead of this revision.
@techreport{aa-ldp-link-shut-00,
    number =    {draft-aa-ldp-link-shut-00},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aa-ldp-link-shut/00/},
    author =    {Anush Mohan and Anup Kumar T},
    title =     {{LDP behaviour on link-shut scenarios}},
    pagetotal = 5,
    year =      ,
    month =     ,
    day =       ,
    abstract =  {This document is intended for clarification of LDP behaviour of link- down scenarios. Base LDP RFC5036 lacks sufficient clarity on what an LDP enabled node should be doing when a link down event is received, and the only LDP adjacency for an LDP peer is over this link. Different vendors have handled this scenario differently, with some immediately resetting tcp session with neighbour and some waiting for igp recovergence instead of reacting directly to link events. With this document we intend to clarify the expected behaviour explicitly so that any interop issues can be avoided.},
}