%% You should probably cite rfc4774 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-tsvwg-ecn-alternates-02,
    number =    {draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-alternates-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-tsvwg-ecn-alternates/02/},
    author =    {Sally Floyd},
    title =     {{Specifying Alternate Semantics for the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Field}},
    pagetotal = 15,
    year =      2006,
    month =     sep,
    day =       13,
    abstract =  {There have been a number of proposals for alternate semantics for the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) field in the IP header RFC 3168. This document discusses some of the issues in defining alternate semantics for the ECN field, and specifies requirements for a safe coexistence in an Internet that could include routers that do not understand the defined alternate semantics. This document evolved as a result of discussions with the authors of one recent proposal for such alternate semantics. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.},
}