%% You should probably cite rfc3224 instead of this I-D. @techreport{guttman-svrloc-vendor-ext-07, number = {draft-guttman-svrloc-vendor-ext-07}, type = {Internet-Draft}, institution = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, note = {Work in Progress}, url = {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-guttman-svrloc-vendor-ext/07/}, author = {Erik Guttman}, title = {{Vendor Extensions for Service Location Protocol, Version 2}}, pagetotal = 10, year = 2001, month = oct, day = 8, abstract = {This document specifies how the features of the Service Location Protocol, Version 2 allow for vendor extensibility safely, with no possibility of collisions. The specification introduces a new SLPv2 extension: The Vendor Opaque Extension. While proprietary protocol extensions are not encouraged by IETF standards, it is important that they not hinder interoperability of compliant implementations when they are undertaken. This document udpates RFC 2608, "The Service Location Protocol." {[}STANDARDS-TRACK{]}}, }