%% You should probably cite draft-duke-tsvwg-ecn-aggregating-tunnels-01 instead of this revision.
@techreport{duke-tsvwg-ecn-aggregating-tunnels-00,
    number =    {draft-duke-tsvwg-ecn-aggregating-tunnels-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-duke-tsvwg-ecn-aggregating-tunnels/00/},
    author =    {Martin Duke},
    title =     {{ECN Over Aggregating Tunnels}},
    pagetotal = 7,
    year =      2022,
    month =     aug,
    day =       16,
    abstract =  {Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) provides two bits in the IP header for routers to signal congestion to endpoints without resorting to packet loss. RFC6040 provided guidance for how IP-in-IP tunnels should transfer (ECN) markings between inner and outer IP headers. However, that document implicitly assumes that no more than one inner packet is present in an outer packet. As numerous tunneling technologies have since emerged that break this assumption, further guidance is needed.},
}