%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy instead of this I-D.
@techreport{muley-pwe3-redundancy-02,
    number =    {draft-muley-pwe3-redundancy-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-pwe3-redundancy/02/},
    author =    {Praveen Muley and Matthew Bocci and Jonathan Newton},
    title =     {{Pseudowire (PW) Redundancy}},
    pagetotal = 16,
    year =      2007,
    month =     nov,
    day =       19,
    abstract =  {This document describes a few scenarios where PW redundancy is needed. 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 the preferential forwarding status of active or standby for each PW in the redundancy set as defined in {[}7{]}. 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{]}.},
}