%% You should probably cite rfc9177 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-core-new-block-10,
    number =    {draft-ietf-core-new-block-10},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-new-block/10/},
    author =    {Mohamed Boucadair and Jon Shallow},
    title =     {{Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) Block-Wise Transfer Options for Faster Transmission}},
    pagetotal = 45,
    year =      2021,
    month =     apr,
    day =       14,
    abstract =  {This document specifies alternative Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) Block-Wise transfer options: Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 Options. These options are similar to the CoAP Block1 and Block2 Options defined in RFC 7959, not a replacement for them, but do enable faster transmission rates for large amounts of data with less packet interchanges. Also, Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 Options support faster recovery should any of the blocks get lost in transmission.},
}