%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext instead of this I-D.
@techreport{dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-00,
    number =    {draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-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-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext/00/},
    author =    {Gaurav Dawra and Clarence Filsfils and Ketan Talaulikar and Arjun Sreekantiah and Les Ginsberg},
    title =     {{BGP Link State extensions for IPv6 Segment Routing(SRv6)}},
    pagetotal = 17,
    year =      ,
    month =     ,
    day =       ,
    abstract =  {Segment Routing IPv6(SRv6) allows for a flexible definition of end- to-end paths within various topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the various protocols such as (BGP, IGP, BGP-LS etc). BGP Link-state(BGP-LS) address-family solution for SRv6 is consistent with BGP-LS for SR-MPLS {[}I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext{]}. This draft defines extensions to the BGP-LS to carry SR/SRv6 Segments, Services and function information via BGP.},
}