%% You should probably cite rfc6941 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-mpls-tp-security-framework-02,
    number =    {draft-ietf-mpls-tp-security-framework-02},
    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-tp-security-framework/02/},
    author =    {Ben Niven-Jenkins and Luyuan Fang and Richard F. Graveman and Scott Mansfield},
    title =     {{MPLS-TP Security Framework}},
    pagetotal = 25,
    year =      ,
    month =     ,
    day =       ,
    abstract =  {This document provides a security framework for Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP). Extended from MPLS technologies, MPLS-TP introduces new OAM capabilities, a transport- oriented path protection mechanism, and strong emphasis on static provisioning supported by network management systems. This document addresses the security aspects that are relevant in the context of MPLS-TP specifically. It describes the security requirements for MPLS-TP and potential security threats and mitigation procedures for MPLS-TP networks and MPLS-TP inter-connection to MPLS and GMPLS networks. This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network. This Informational Internet-Draft is aimed at achieving IETF Consensus before publication as an RFC and will be subject to an IETF Last Call. {[}RFC Editor, please remove this note before publication as an RFC and insert the correct Streams Boilerplate to indicate that the published RFC has IETF Consensus.{]}},
}