%% You should probably cite rfc9357 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-03,
    number =    {draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-03},
    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/03/},
    author =    {Quan Xiong},
    title =     {{Label Switched Path (LSP) Object Flag Extension of Stateful PCE}},
    pagetotal = 9,
    year =      2022,
    month =     jun,
    day =       8,
    abstract =  {RFC 8231 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 RFC 8231, RFC 8281, RFC 8623 and I-D.ietf-pce- binding-label-sid. {[}Note to RFC Editor - Replace I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid to RFC XXXX, once the RFC number is assigned.{]} This document proposes to define a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV for the LSP object for an extended flag field.},
}