%% You should probably cite rfc8185 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination-06,
    number =    {draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination-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-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination/06/},
    author =    {Weiqiang Cheng and Lei Wang and Han Li and Jie Dong and Alessandro D'Alessandro},
    title =     {{Dual-Homing Coordination for MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Pseudowires Protection}},
    pagetotal = 17,
    year =      2017,
    month =     apr,
    day =       25,
    abstract =  {In some scenarios, MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) pseudowires (PWs) (RFC 5921) may be statically configured when a dynamic control plane is not available. A fast protection mechanism for MPLS-TP PWs is needed to protect against the failure of an Attachment Circuit (AC), the failure of a Provider Edge (PE), or a failure in the Packet Switched Network (PSN). The framework and typical scenarios of dual- homing PW local protection are described in RFC 8184. This document proposes a dual-homing coordination mechanism for MPLS-TP PWs that is used for state exchange and switchover coordination between the dual- homing PEs for dual-homing PW local protection.},
}