%% You should probably cite rfc9947 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark-13,
    number =    {draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark-13},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark/13/},
    author =    {Giuseppe Fioccola and Tianran Zhou and Mauro Cociglio and Gyan Mishra and xuewei wang and Geng Zhang},
    title =     {{Application of the Alternate Marking Method to the Segment Routing Header}},
    pagetotal = 18,
    year =      2025,
    month =     jul,
    day =       1,
    abstract =  {This document describes an alternative experimental approach for the application of the Alternate-Marking Method to SRv6. It uses a new TLV in the Segment Routing Header (SRH) with experimental code points, and thus participation in this experiment should be between coordinating parties in a controlled domain. This approach has potential scaling and simplification benefits over the technique described in RFC 9343 and the scope of the experiment is to determine whether those are significant and attractive to the community. This protocol extension has been developed outside the IETF as an alternative to the IETF’s standards track specification RFC 9343 and it does not have IETF consensus. It is published here to guide experimental implementation, ensure interoperability among implementations to better determine the value of this approach. Researchers are invited to submit their evaluations of this work to the RFC Editor for consideration as independent submissions or to the IETF SPRING working group as Internet-Drafts.},
}