%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-mpls-inter-domain-p2mp-rsvp-te-lsp instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ali-mpls-inter-domain-p2mp-rsvp-te-lsp-09,
    number =    {draft-ali-mpls-inter-domain-p2mp-rsvp-te-lsp-09},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ali-mpls-inter-domain-p2mp-rsvp-te-lsp/09/},
    author =    {Zafar Ali and Rakesh Gandhi and Tarek Saad and Robert H. Venator and Yuji Kamite},
    title =     {{Signaling RSVP-TE P2MP LSPs in an Inter-domain Environment}},
    pagetotal = 16,
    year =      2012,
    month =     oct,
    day =       15,
    abstract =  {Point-to-MultiPoint (P2MP) Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) are established using signaling procedures defined in {[}RFC4875{]}. However, {[}RFC4875{]} does not address several issues that arise when a P2MP-TE LSP is signaled in inter-domain networks. One such issue is the computation of a loosely routed inter-domain P2MP- TE LSP paths that are re-merge free. Another issue is the reoptimization of the inter-domain P2MP-TE LSP tree vs. an individual destination(s), since the loosely routing domain ingress border node is not aware of the reoptimization scope. This document defines the required protocol extensions needed for establishing and reoptimizing P2MP MPLS and GMPLS TE LSPs in inter-domain networks.},
}