%% You should probably cite rfc7771 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-00,
    number =    {draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-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-pals-ms-pw-protection/00/},
    author =    {Andrew G. Malis and Loa Andersson and Huub van Helvoort and Jongyoon Shin and Lei Wang and Alessandro D'Alessandro},
    title =     {{S-PE Outage Protection for Static Multi-Segment Pseudowires}},
    pagetotal = 8,
    year =      2015,
    month =     jan,
    day =       27,
    abstract =  {In MPLS and MPLS-TP environments, statically provisioned Single- Segment Pseudowires (SS-PWs) are protected against tunnel failure via MPLS-level and MPLS-TP-level tunnel protection. With statically provisioned Multi-Segment Pseudowires (MS-PWs), each segment of the MS-PW is likewise protected from tunnel failures via MPLS-level and MPLS-TP-level tunnel protection. However, static MS-PWs are not protected end-to-end against failure of one of the switching PEs (S-PEs) along the path of the MS-PW. This document describes how to achieve this protection by updating the existing procedures in RFC 6870. It also contains an optional approach based on MPLS-TP Linear Protection.},
}