%% You should probably cite draft-gredler-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext instead of this I-D.
@techreport{gredler-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-extension-00,
    number =    {draft-gredler-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-extension-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-gredler-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-extension/00/},
    author =    {Hannes Gredler and Saikat Ray and Stefano Previdi and Clarence Filsfils and Mach Chen and Jeff Tantsura},
    title =     {{BGP Link-State extensions for Segment Routing}},
    pagetotal = 11,
    year =      2014,
    month =     feb,
    day =       12,
    abstract =  {Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within link-state graphs by encoding paths as sequences of topological sub-paths, called "segments". The link-state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPF and OSPFv3) have been extended to advertise the segments. But flooding based propagation of path segments using IGPs is limited by the perimeter of the IGP domain. For building paths which span across IGP domains (e.g. multiple ASes), the Border Gataway Protocol (BGP) is better suited as its propagation perimeter is not limited like the IGPs. This draft defines extensions to the BGP Link-state address-family to carry path segment information via BGP.},
}