%% You should probably cite rfc9570 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-mpls-lspping-norao-06,
    number =    {draft-ietf-mpls-lspping-norao-06},
    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-mpls-lspping-norao/06/},
    author =    {Kireeti Kompella and Ron Bonica and Greg Mirsky},
    title =     {{Deprecating the Use of Router Alert in LSP Ping}},
    pagetotal = 9,
    year =      2023,
    month =     nov,
    day =       6,
    abstract =  {The MPLS echo request and MPLS echo response messages, defined in RFC 8029 "Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures" (usually referred to as LSP ping messages), are encapsulated in IP headers that include a Router Alert Option (RAO). The rationale for using an RAO as the exception mechanism is questionable. Furthermore, RFC 6398 identifies security vulnerabilities associated with the RAO in non-controlled environments, e.g., the case of using the MPLS echo request/reply as inter-area OAM, and recommends against its use outside of controlled environments. Therefore, this document retires the RAO for MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM). It reclassifies RFC 7506 as Historic and updates RFC 8029 to remove the RAO from LSP ping message encapsulations. This document also recommends the use of an IPv6 loopback address (::1/128) and not the use of an IPv4 loopback address mapped to IPv6.},
}