%% You should probably cite draft-ravi-icnrg-ccn-notification-01 instead of this revision.
@techreport{ravi-icnrg-ccn-notification-00,
    number =    {draft-ravi-icnrg-ccn-notification-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-ravi-icnrg-ccn-notification/00/},
    author =    {Ravi Ravindran and Asit Chakraborti and Syed Obaid Amin and Jiachen Chen and Marc Mosko and Ignacio Solis},
    title =     {{Support for Notifications in CCN}},
    pagetotal = 18,
    year =      2016,
    month =     jul,
    day =       8,
    abstract =  {This draft proposes a new packet primitive called Notification for CCN. Notification is a PUSH primitive and can be unicast or multicast to multiple listening points. Notifications do not expect a Content Object response hence only requires the use of FIB state in the CCN forwarder. Emulating Notification as a PULL has performance and routing implications. The draft proposes a new fixed header primitive called Notification and a CCN message encoding using Content Object primitive to transport Notifications. These discussions are presented in the context of CCNx1.0 {[}1{]} proposal. The draft also provides discussions on various aspects related to notification such as flow and congestion control, routing and reliability considerations, and use case scenarios.},
}