%% You should probably cite rfc6660 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-08,
    number =    {draft-ietf-pcn-3-in-1-encoding-08},
    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-pcn-3-in-1-encoding/08/},
    author =    {Bob Briscoe and Toby Moncaster and Michael Menth},
    title =     {{Encoding 3 PCN-States in the IP header using a single DSCP}},
    pagetotal = 23,
    year =      2011,
    month =     aug,
    day =       18,
    abstract =  {The objective of Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) is to protect the quality of service (QoS) of inelastic flows within a Diffserv domain. The overall rate of the PCN-traffic is metered on every link in the PCN domain, and PCN-packets are appropriately marked when certain configured rates are exceeded. Egress nodes pass information about these PCN-marks to decision points which then decide whether to admit or block new flow requests or to terminate some already-admitted flows during serious pre-congestion. This document specifies how PCN-marks are to be encoded into the IP header by re-using the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) codepoints within a PCN-domain. This encoding provides for up to three different PCN marking states using a single DSCP: not-marked (NM), threshold-marked (ThM) and excess-traffic-marked (ETM). Hence, it is called the 3-in-1 PCN encoding. This document obsoletes RFC5696.},
}