%% You should probably cite rfc9720 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{rswg-rfc7990-updates-01,
    number =    {draft-rswg-rfc7990-updates-01},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rswg-rfc7990-updates/01/},
    author =    {Paul E. Hoffman},
    title =     {{Updated RFC Format Framework}},
    pagetotal = 8,
    year =      ,
    month =     ,
    day =       ,
    abstract =  {This document updates RFC 7990 by changing the word "canonical" to "definitive" and defining what it means to the series. It also updates RFC 7990 by defining the relationship of the publication formats to the series and the expectation of archiving both the definitive and publication formats of RFCs. A policy governing how the RFCXML format changes is described. An open question for the RSWG is whether this document should be an update patch to RFC 7990 (which is the current form of the document) or a complete rewrite done to obsolete RFC 7990. This draft is part of the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG); see https://datatracker.ietf.org/edwg/rswg/documents/ (https://datatracker.ietf.org/edwg/rswg/documents/). There is a repository for this draft at https://github.com/paulehoffman/draft- rswg-rfc7990-updates (https://github.com/paulehoffman/draft-rswg- rfc7990-updates). Issues can be raised there, but probably should be on the mailing list instead.},
}