%% You should probably cite rfc9331 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-10,
    number =    {draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-10},
    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-l4s-id/10/},
    author =    {Koen De Schepper and Bob Briscoe},
    title =     {{Identifying Modified Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Semantics for Ultra-Low Queuing Delay (L4S)}},
    pagetotal = 45,
    year =      2020,
    month =     mar,
    day =       9,
    abstract =  {This specification defines the identifier to be used on IP packets for a new network service called low latency, low loss and scalable throughput (L4S). It is similar to the original (or 'Classic') Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN). 'Classic' ECN marking was required to be equivalent to a drop, both when applied in the network and when responded to by a transport. Unlike 'Classic' ECN marking, for packets carrying the L4S identifier, the network applies marking more immediately and more aggressively than drop, and the transport response to each mark is reduced and smoothed relative to that for drop. The two changes counterbalance each other so that the throughput of an L4S flow will be roughly the same as a non-L4S flow under the same conditions. Nonetheless, the much more frequent control signals and the finer responses to them result in much more fine-grained adjustments, so that ultra-low and consistently low queuing delay (typically sub-millisecond on average) becomes possible for L4S traffic without compromising link utilization. Thus even capacity-seeking (TCP-like) traffic can have high bandwidth and very low delay at the same time, even during periods of high traffic load. The L4S identifier defined in this document distinguishes L4S from 'Classic' (e.g. TCP-Reno-friendly) traffic. It gives an incremental migration path so that suitably modified network bottlenecks can distinguish and isolate existing traffic that still follows the Classic behaviour, to prevent it degrading the low queuing delay and loss of L4S traffic. This specification defines the rules that L4S transports and network elements need to follow to ensure they neither harm each other's performance nor that of Classic traffic. Examples of new active queue management (AQM) marking algorithms and examples of new transports (whether TCP-like or real-time) are specified separately.},
}