%% You should probably cite rfc8426 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-teas-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec-04,
    number =    {draft-ietf-teas-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec-04},
    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-teas-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec/04/},
    author =    {Harish Sitaraman and Vishnu Pavan Beeram and Ina Minei and Siva Sivabalan},
    title =     {{Recommendations for RSVP-TE and Segment Routing (SR) Label Switched Path (LSP) Coexistence}},
    pagetotal = 12,
    year =      2018,
    month =     may,
    day =       16,
    abstract =  {Operators are looking to introduce services over Segment Routing (SR) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in networks running Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) LSPs. In some instances, operators are also migrating existing services from RSVP-TE to SR LSPs. For example, there might be certain services that are well suited for SR and need to coexist with RSVP-TE in the same network. Such introduction or migration of traffic to SR might require coexistence with RSVP-TE in the same network for an extended period of time, depending on the operator's intent. The following document provides solution options for keeping the traffic engineering database consistent across the network, accounting for the different bandwidth utilization between SR and RSVP-TE.},
}