%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls or draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-detnet-dp-sol-00,
    number =    {draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-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-ietf-detnet-dp-sol/00/},
    author =    {Jouni Korhonen and Loa Andersson and Yuanlong Jiang and Norman Finn and Balazs Varga and János Farkas and Carlos J. Bernardos and Tal Mizrahi and Lou Berger},
    title =     {{DetNet Data Plane Encapsulation}},
    pagetotal = 36,
    year =      2017,
    month =     oct,
    day =       30,
    abstract =  {This document specifies Deterministic Networking data plane encapsulation solutions. The described data plane solutions can be applied over either IP or MPLS Packet Switched Networks. Comment \#1: SB\textgreater{} An overarching comment is that the early part of the document is really fundamental architecture and perhaps belongs in the arch draft, leaving this draft to be more specific about solutions. Indeed if we cannot find a single solution that maps to both IP and MPLS underlays I wonder if we should publish two specialist RFCs? Discussion: One document at the beginning, split into two if/when needed. Would be post adoption in any case. Comment \#2: SB\textgreater{} Whilst I think we should look for a common solution to IP and MPLS I do not think that this is where the DT ended up. Discussion: Agree.},
}