%% You should probably cite rfc6870 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-09,
    number =    {draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-09},
    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-pwe3-redundancy-bit/09/},
    author =    {Praveen Muley and Mustapha Aissaoui},
    title =     {{Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit}},
    pagetotal = 35,
    year =      2013,
    month =     jan,
    day =       4,
    abstract =  {This document describes a mechanism for signaling the active and standby status of redundant Pseudowires (PWs) between their termination points. A set of Redundant PWs is configured between Provider Edge (PE) nodes in single-segment pseudowire (SS-PW) applications or between Terminating Provider Edge (T-PE) nodes in Multi-Segment Pseudowire (MS-PW) applications. In order for the PE/T-PE nodes to indicate the preferred PW to use for forwarding PW packets to one another, a new status bit is defined. This bit indicates a Preferential Forwarding status with a value of active or standby for each PW in a redundant set. In addition, a second status bit is defined to allow peer PE nodes to coordinate a switchover operation of the PW. Finally, this document updates RFC 4447 by adding details to the handling of the PW status code bits in the PW Status TLV.},
}