%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-ippm-registry-passive-01,
    number =    {draft-ietf-ippm-registry-passive-01},
    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-registry-passive/01/},
    author =    {Aamer Akhter and Benoît Claise},
    title =     {{Passive Performance Metrics Sub-Registry}},
    pagetotal = 23,
    year =      2014,
    month =     jul,
    day =       4,
    abstract =  {This document specifies the Passive Performance Metrics sub-registry of the Performance Metric Registry. This sub-registry contains Passive Performance Metrics, especially those defined in RFCs prepared in the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Working Group of the IETF, and possibly applicable to other IETF metrics. This document specifies a way to organize registry entries into columns that are well-defined, permitting consistent development of entries over time (a column may be marked NA if it is not applicable for that metric). The design is intended to foster development of registry entries based on existing reference RFCs, whilst each column serves as a check-list item to avoid omissions during the registration process. Every entry in the registry, before IANA action, requires Expert review as defined by concurrent IETF work in progress "Registry for Performance Metrics" (draft-ietf-ippm-metric- registry). The document contains example entries for the Passive Performance Metrics sub-registry: a registry entry for a passive metric based on octetTotalCount as defined in RFC5102 and a protocol specific passive metric based on RTP packets lost as defined in RFC3550. The examples are for Informational purposes and do not create any entry in the IANA registry.},
}