%% You should probably cite rfc5290 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{floyd-tsvwg-besteffort-04,
    number =    {draft-floyd-tsvwg-besteffort-04},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-floyd-tsvwg-besteffort/04/},
    author =    {Sally Floyd and Mark Allman},
    title =     {{Comments on the Usefulness of Simple Best-Effort Traffic}},
    pagetotal = 20,
    year =      2008,
    month =     may,
    day =       19,
    abstract =  {This document presents some observations on "simple best-effort traffic", defined loosely for the purposes of this document as Internet traffic that is not covered by Quality of Service (QOS) mechanisms, congestion-based pricing, cost-based fairness, admissions control, or the like. One observation is that simple best-effort traffic serves a useful role in the Internet, and is worth keeping. While differential treatment of traffic can clearly be useful, we believe such mechanisms are useful as *adjuncts* to simple best- effort traffic, not as *replacements* of simple best-effort traffic. A second observation is that for simple best-effort traffic, some form of rough flow-rate fairness is a useful goal for resource allocation, where "flow-rate fairness" is defined by the goal of equal flow rates for different flows over the same path. This memo provides information for the Internet community.},
}