%% You should probably cite draft-klensin-idna-5892upd-unicode70-05 instead of this revision.
@techreport{klensin-idna-5892upd-unicode70-03,
    number =    {draft-klensin-idna-5892upd-unicode70-03},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-klensin-idna-5892upd-unicode70/03/},
    author =    {Dr. John C. Klensin and Patrik Fältström},
    title =     {{IDNA Update for Unicode 7.0.0}},
    pagetotal = 16,
    year =      2015,
    month =     jan,
    day =       7,
    abstract =  {The current version of the IDNA specifications anticipated that each new version of Unicode would be reviewed to verify that no changes had been introduced that required adjustments to the set of rules and, in particular, whether new exceptions or backward compatibility adjustments were needed. That review was conducted for Unicode 7.0.0 and identified a potentially problematic new code point. This specification discusses that code point and associated issues and updates RFC 5892 accordingly. It also applies an editorial clarification that was the subject of an earlier erratum. In addition, the discussion of the specific issue updates RFC 5894.},
}