%% You should probably cite rfc7079 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-02,
    number =    {draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-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-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results/02/},
    author =    {Andrew G. Malis},
    title =     {{The Pseudowire (PW) \& Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementation Survey Results}},
    pagetotal = 37,
    year =      2013,
    month =     aug,
    day =       21,
    abstract =  {Most pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) encapsulations mandate the use of the Control Word (CW) to carry information essential to the emulation, to inhibit Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) behavior, and to discriminate Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) from Pseudowire (PW) packets. However, some encapsulations treat the Control Word as optional. As a result, implementations of the CW, for encapsulations for which it is optional, vary by equipment manufacturer, equipment model and service provider network. Similarly, Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) supports three Control Channel (CC) types and multiple Connectivity Verification (CV) Types. This flexibility has led to reports of interoperability issues within deployed networks and associated drafts to attempt to remedy the situation. This survey of the PW/ VCCV user community was conducted to determine implementation trends. The survey and results is presented herein.},
}