%% You should probably cite rfc6848 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-geopriv-local-civic-07,
    number =    {draft-ietf-geopriv-local-civic-07},
    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-geopriv-local-civic/07/},
    author =    {James Winterbottom and Martin Thomson and Richard Barnes and Brian Rosen and Robins George},
    title =     {{Specifying Civic Address Extensions in PIDF-LO}},
    pagetotal = 21,
    year =      2012,
    month =     oct,
    day =       9,
    abstract =  {New fields are occasionally added to civic addresses. A backwardly- compatible mechanism for adding civic address elements to the Geopriv civic address format is described. A formal mechanism for handling unsupported extensions when translating between XML and DHCP civic address forms is defined for entities that need to perform this translation. Intial extensions for some new elements are also defined. The LoST (RFC5222) protocol mechanism that returns civic address element names used for validation of location information is clarified and is normatively updated to require a qualifying namespace identifier on each civic address element returned as part of the validation process.},
}