%% You should probably cite rfc8690 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-00,
    number =    {draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-00},
    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-rfc8287-len-clarification/00/},
    author =    {Nagendra Kumar Nainar and Carlos Pignataro and Faisal Iqbal and Sasha Vainshtein},
    title =     {{RFC8287 Sub-TLV Length Clarification}},
    pagetotal = 6,
    year =      2019,
    month =     mar,
    day =       25,
    abstract =  {RFC8287 defines the extensions to MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute for Segment Routing IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifier (SIDs) with an MPLS data plane. RFC8287 proposes 3 Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs. While the standard defines the format and procedure to handle those Sub-TLVs, it does not sufficiently clarify how the length of the Segment ID Sub-TLVs should be computed to include in the Length field of the Sub-TLVs which may result in interoperability issues. This document updates RFC8287 by clarifying the length of each Segment ID Sub-TLVs defined in RFC8287.},
}