%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-10 instead of this revision.
@techreport{ietf-dtn-ipn-update-00,
    number =    {draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-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-dtn-ipn-update/00/},
    author =    {Rick Taylor and Edward J. Birrane},
    title =     {{Update to the ipn URI scheme}},
    pagetotal = 22,
    year =      2022,
    month =     nov,
    day =       7,
    abstract =  {The 'ipn' URI scheme was first defined in {[}RFC6260{]} as a format for endpoint identifiers with the Delay Tolerant Networking Bundle Protocol version 6 (BPv6) {[}RFC5050{]}, when using Compressed Bundle Header Encoding (CBHE). {[}RFC7116{]} requested IANA registries to control the allocation of the numeric identifiers used with the 'ipn' URI scheme. The Bundle Protocol version 7 (BPv7) specification {[}RFC9171{]} repeats the definition of the 'ipn' URI scheme, for use with BPv7, reusing the format from {[}RFC6260{]}. Because the specification of the 'ipn' URI scheme has been split over several documents, referencing different versions of the Bundle Protocol, some confusion has occurred amongst readers and implementers. This document pulls together the information contained in those previous documents and asserts the specification of the 'ipn' URI scheme for use with BPv7, acting as an update to those previous documents. A criticism of the existing 'ipn' URI scheme node number allocation strategy as defined in {[}RFC7116{]} is that sub-ranges of a single number space are assigned for the use by individual organisations. This allocation strategy results in inefficient encoding of URIs with BPv7. This document extends the format of the 'ipn' URI scheme to include Numbering Authorities, allowing for a more flexible sub- allocation strategy, resulting in a more efficient encoding with BPv7.},
}