%% You should probably cite rfc8395 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-01,
    number =    {draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-01},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp/01/},
    author =    {Keyur Patel and Sami Boutros and Jose Liste and Bin Wen and Jorge Rabadan},
    title =     {{Extensions to BGP Signaled Pseudowires to support Flow-Aware Transport Labels}},
    pagetotal = 9,
    year =      2016,
    month =     may,
    day =       25,
    abstract =  {{[}RFC6391{]} describes a mechanism that uses an additional label (Flow Label) in the MPLS label stack that allows Label Switch Routers to balance flows within Pseudowires at a finer granularity than the individual Pseudowires across the Equal Cost Multiple Paths (ECMPs) that exists within the Packet Switched Network (PSN). Furthermore,{[}RFC6391{]} defines the LDP protocol extensions required to synchronize the flow label states between the ingress and egress PEs when using the signaling procedures defined in the {[}RFC4447{]}. This draft defines protocol extensions required to synchronize flow label states among PEs when using the BGP-based signaling procedures defined in {[}RFC4761{]}. These protocol extensions are equally applicable to point-to-point L2VPNs defined in {[}RFC6624{]}.},
}