%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-ta-tiebreaker instead of this I-D.
@techreport{spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-ta-tiebreaker-02,
    number =    {draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-ta-tiebreaker-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-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-ta-tiebreaker/02/},
    author =    {Job Snijders and Theo Buehler and Ties de Kock},
    title =     {{Tiebreaking Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Trust Anchors}},
    pagetotal = 7,
    year =      2024,
    month =     sep,
    day =       4,
    abstract =  {A Trust Anchor (TA) in the RPKI is represented by a self-signed X.509 Certification Authority (CA) certificate. Over time, Relying Parties (RP) may have acquired multiple different issuances of valid TA certificates from the same TA operator. This document proposes a tiebreaking scheme to be used by RPs to select one TA certificate for certification path validation. This document updates RFC 8630.},
}