%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv instead of this I-D.
@techreport{boutros-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-03,
    number =    {draft-boutros-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-03},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boutros-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv/03/},
    author =    {Sami Boutros and Siva Sivabalan and Shaleen Saxena and George Swallow and Michael Wildt and Sam Aldrin},
    title =     {{Definition of Time-to-Live TLV for LSP-Ping Mechanisms}},
    pagetotal = 9,
    year =      2011,
    month =     feb,
    day =       28,
    abstract =  {LSP-Ping is a widely deployed Operation, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) mechanism in MPLS networks. However, in the present form, this mechanism is inadequate to verify connectivity of a segment of a Multi-Segment PseudoWire (MS-PW) from any node on the path of the MS-PW. Similar shortcoming is seen on a bidirectional co- routed MPLS TP LSPs. This document defines a TLV to address these shortcomings. Requirements Language 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 {[}3{]}.},
}