%% You should probably cite rfc6739 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-ecrit-lost-sync-16,
    number =    {draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync-16},
    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-ecrit-lost-sync/16/},
    author =    {Henning Schulzrinne and Hannes Tschofenig},
    title =     {{Synchronizing Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol based Service Boundaries and Mapping Elements}},
    pagetotal = 29,
    year =      2012,
    month =     jan,
    day =       13,
    abstract =  {The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol is an XML-based protocol for mapping service identifiers and geodetic or civic location information to service URIs and service boundaries. In particular, it can be used to determine the location-appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for emergency services. The main data structure, the \textless{}mapping\textgreater{} element, used for encapsulating information about service boundaries is defined in the LoST protocol specification and circumscribes the region within which all locations map to the same service Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) or set of URIs for a given service. This document defines an XML protocol to exchange these mappings between two nodes. This mechanism is designed for the exchange of authoritative \textless{}mapping\textgreater{} elements between two entities. Exchanging cached \textless{}mapping\textgreater{} elements, i.e. non-authoritative elements, is possible but not envisioned. In any case, this document can also be used without the LoST protocol even though the format of the \textless{}mapping\textgreater{} element is re-used from the LoST specification.},
}