%% You should probably cite rfc9357 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-02,
    number =    {draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-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-pce-lsp-extended-flags/02/},
    author =    {Quan Xiong},
    title =     {{LSP Object Flag Extension of Stateful PCE}},
    pagetotal = 8,
    year =      2022,
    month =     may,
    day =       11,
    abstract =  {{[}RFC8231{]} describes a set of extensions to Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via PCEP. One of the extensions is the LSP object which includes a Flag field of the length of 12 bits. However, all bits of the Flag field have already been assigned in {[}RFC8231{]}, {[}RFC8281{]}, {[}RFC8623{]} and {[}I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid{]}. This document proposes to define a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV for the LSP object for an extended flag field.},
}