%% You should probably cite draft-gersch-dnsop-revdns-cidr-04 instead of this revision.
@techreport{gersch-dnsop-revdns-cidr-00,
    number =    {draft-gersch-dnsop-revdns-cidr-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-gersch-dnsop-revdns-cidr/00/},
    author =    {Joe Gersch and Dan Massey},
    title =     {{Reverse DNS Naming Convention for CIDR Address Blocks}},
    pagetotal = 19,
    year =      2012,
    month =     feb,
    day =       16,
    abstract =  {The current reverse DNS naming method is used to specify a complete IP address. It has not been used to handle address ranges; for example, there is no formal mechanism for specifying a reverse DNS name for the block of addresses specified by the IPv4 prefix 129.82.0.0/16. Defining such a reverse DNS naming convention would be useful for a number of applications. These include applications for secure BGP routing, and applications that need host-information for a device owning a complete IPv6 address block. This draft proposes a naming convention for encoding CIDR address blocks in the reverse DNS.},
}