%% You should probably cite rfc4974 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-04,
    number =    {draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-04},
    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-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call/04/},
    author =    {Adrian Farrel and Dimitri Papadimitriou},
    title =     {{Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in Support of Calls}},
    pagetotal = 31,
    year =      2007,
    month =     jan,
    day =       23,
    abstract =  {In certain networking topologies, it may be advantageous to maintain associations between endpoints and key transit points to support an instance of a service. Such associations are known as Calls. A Call does not provide the actual connectivity for transmitting user traffic, but only builds a relationship by which subsequent Connections may be made. In Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) such Connections are known as Label Switched Paths (LSPs). This document specifies how GMPLS Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling may be used and extended to support Calls. These mechanisms provide full and logical Call/Connection separation. The mechanisms proposed in this document are applicable to any environment (including multi-area), and for any type of interface: packet, layer-2, time-division multiplexed, lambda, or fiber switching. {[}STANDARDS-TRACK{]}},
}