%% You should probably cite rfc9331 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-14,
    number =    {draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id-14},
    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/14/},
    author =    {Koen De Schepper and Bob Briscoe},
    title =     {{Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Protocol for Ultra-Low Queuing Delay (L4S)}},
    pagetotal = 59,
    year =      2021,
    month =     mar,
    day =       9,
    abstract =  {This specification defines the protocol to be used for a new network service called low latency, low loss and scalable throughput (L4S). L4S uses an Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) scheme at the IP layer that is similar to the original (or 'Classic') ECN approach, except as specified within. 'Classic' ECN marking is 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 low 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.},
}