%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-20 instead of this revision.
@techreport{ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-19,
    number =    {draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv-19},
    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-grow-bmp-tlv/19/},
    author =    {Paolo Lucente and Yunan Gu},
    title =     {{BMP v4: TLV Support for BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages}},
    pagetotal = 17,
    year =      2025,
    month =     oct,
    day =       10,
    abstract =  {Most of the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) message types make provision for data in Type, Length, Value (TLV) format. However, Route Monitoring messages (which provide a snapshot of the monitored Routing Information Base) and Peer Down messages (which indicate that a peering session was terminated) do not. Supporting (optional) data in TLV format across all BMP message types provides consistent and extensible structures that would be useful among the various use- cases where conveying additional data to a monitoring station is required. This document updates RFC 7854 {[}RFC7854{]} to support TLV data in all message types. Additionally, this document introduces support for enterprise- specific TLVs in the BGP Monitoring Protocol by defining an Enterprise Bit (E-bit) that allows usage of per-vendor Type values.},
}