%% You should probably cite rfc9514 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-14,
    number =    {draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-14},
    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-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext/14/},
    author =    {Gaurav Dawra and Clarence Filsfils and Ketan Talaulikar and Mach Chen and Daniel Bernier and Bruno Decraene},
    title =     {{Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)}},
    pagetotal = 23,
    year =      2023,
    month =     feb,
    day =       17,
    abstract =  {Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within various topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological or functional sub-paths called "segments". These segments are advertised by various protocols such as BGP, IS-IS, and OSPFv3. This document defines extensions to BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) to advertise SRv6 segments along with their behaviors and other attributes via BGP. The BGP-LS address-family solution for SRv6 described in this document is similar to BGP-LS for SR for the MPLS data plane, which is defined in RFC 9085.},
}