%% You should probably cite draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response-01 instead of this revision.
@techreport{khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response-00,
    number =    {draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response-00},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-khademi-tsvwg-ecn-response/00/},
    author =    {Naeem Khademi and Michael Welzl and Dr. Grenville Armitage and Gorry Fairhurst},
    title =     {{Updating the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Congestion Control Response}},
    pagetotal = 10,
    year =      2016,
    month =     may,
    day =       31,
    abstract =  {RFC3168 and RFC4774 state that, upon the receipt by an ECN-Capable transport of a single CE packet, the congestion control algorithms followed at the end-systems MUST be essentially the same as the congestion control response to a single dropped packet. This document relaxes this rule in order to encourage experimentation with different backoff strategies. This sender-side update makes it possible to achieve greater benefits with ECN, encouraging wider ECN deployment.},
}