%% You should probably cite rfc6774 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist-07,
    number =    {draft-ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist-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-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist/07/},
    author =    {Robert Raszuk and Rex Fernando and Keyur Patel and Danny R. McPherson and Kenji Kumaki},
    title =     {{Distribution of diverse BGP paths.}},
    pagetotal = 23,
    year =      2012,
    month =     may,
    day =       3,
    abstract =  {The BGP4 protocol specifies the selection and propagation of a single best path for each prefix. As defined and widely deployed today BGP has no mechanisms to distribute alternate paths which are not considered best path between its speakers. This behaviour results in number of disadvantages for new applications and services. This document presents an alternative mechanism for solving the problem based on the concept of parallel route reflector planes. Such planes can be built in parallel or they can co-exist on the current route reflection platforms. Document also compares existing solutions and proposed ideas that enable distribution of more paths than just the best path. This proposal does not specify any changes to the BGP protocol definition. It does not require upgrades to provider edge or core routers nor does it need network wide upgrades.},
}