%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit instead of this I-D.
@techreport{muley-dutta-pwe3-redundancy-bit-02,
    number =    {draft-muley-dutta-pwe3-redundancy-bit-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-muley-dutta-pwe3-redundancy-bit/02/},
    author =    {Praveen Muley and Matthew Bocci and Jonathan Newton and Luca Martini},
    title =     {{Preferential Forwarding Status bit definition}},
    pagetotal = 17,
    year =      2007,
    month =     nov,
    day =       19,
    abstract =  {This document describes a mechanism for standby status signaling of redundant PWs between their termination points. A set of redundant PWs is configured between PE nodes in SS-PW applications, or between T-PE nodes in MS-PW applications. In order for the PE/T-PE nodes to indicate the preferred PW path to forward to one another, a new status bit is needed to indicate a preferential forwarding status of active or standby for each PW in the redundancy set. In addition, a second status bit is defined to allow peer PE/T-PE nodes to coordinate a switchover operation of the PW/MS-PW path. Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 {[}1{]}.},
}