%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest instead of this I-D.
@techreport{briscoe-tsvwg-byte-pkt-mark-02,
    number =    {draft-briscoe-tsvwg-byte-pkt-mark-02},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-briscoe-tsvwg-byte-pkt-mark/02/},
    author =    {Bob Briscoe},
    title =     {{Byte and Packet Congestion Notification}},
    pagetotal = 37,
    year =      2008,
    month =     feb,
    day =       25,
    abstract =  {This memo concerns dropping or marking packets using active queue management (AQM) such as random early detection (RED) or pre- congestion notification (PCN). The primary conclusion is that packet size should be taken into account when transports decode congestion indications, not when network equipment writes them. Reducing drop of small packets has some tempting advantages: i) it drops less control packets, which tend to be small and ii) it makes TCP's bit- rate less dependent on packet size. However, there are ways of addressing these issues at the transport layer, rather than reverse engineering network forwarding to fix specific transport problems. Network layer algorithms like the byte-mode packet drop variant of RED should not be used to drop fewer small packets, because that creates a perverse incentive for transports to use tiny segments, consequently also opening up a DoS vulnerability.},
}