%% You should probably cite rfc9960 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-20,
    number =    {draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-20},
    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-pim-sr-p2mp-policy/20/},
    author =    {Rishabh Parekh (editor) and Daniel Voyer and Clarence Filsfils and Hooman Bidgoli and Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang},
    title =     {{Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint Policy}},
    pagetotal = 27,
    year =      ,
    month =     ,
    day =       ,
    abstract =  {Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Policy enables creation of P2MP trees for efficient multi-point packet delivery in a Segment Routing (SR) domain. This document specifies the architecture, signaling, and procedures for SR P2MP Policies with Segment Routing over MPLS (SR- MPLS) and Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6). It defines the SR P2MP Policy construct, candidate paths (CP) of an SR P2MP Policy and the instantiation of the P2MP tree instances of a candidate path using Replication segments. Additionally, it describes the required extensions for a controller to support P2MP path computation and provisioning.},
}