%% You should probably cite rfc6891 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-08,
    number =    {draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-08},
    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-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0/08/},
    author =    {Joao da Silva Damas and Michael Graff and Paul A. Vixie},
    title =     {{Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)}},
    pagetotal = 15,
    year =      2012,
    month =     feb,
    day =       7,
    abstract =  {The Domain Name System's wire protocol includes a number of fixed fields whose range has been or soon will be exhausted and does not allow requestors to advertise their capabilities to responders. This document describes backward compatible mechanisms for allowing the protocol to grow. This document updates the EDNS0 specification (RFC 2671) based on feedback from deployment experience in several implementations. It also closes the IANA registry for extended labels created as part of RFC 2671 and obsoletes RFC 2673 ("Binary Labels in the Domain Name System") which depends on the existence of extended labels.},
}