%% You should probably cite rfc10052 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-11,
    number =    {draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-11},
    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-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts/11/},
    author =    {Greg Mirsky and Ernesto Ruffini and Henrik Nydell and Richard "Footer" Foote and Will Hawkins},
    title =     {{Performance Measurement with Asymmetrical Traffic Using Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP)}},
    pagetotal = 18,
    year =      2026,
    month =     feb,
    day =       20,
    abstract =  {This document defines an optional STAMP extension that allows a Session-Reflector to send packets whose length or quantity differs from those sent by the Session-Sender. While standard STAMP exchanges packets symmetrically, some measurement scenarios benefit from asymmetric response packets to better reflect real application conditions. This extension enables the Session-Reflector to send packets of different sizes and/or additional packets not tied one- for-one to incoming test packets. The document also analyzes challenges in multicast performance monitoring and specifies STAMP procedures to improve measurement efficiency and reduce network impact.},
}