%% You should probably cite rfc8863 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-ice-pac-05,
    number =    {draft-ietf-ice-pac-05},
    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-ice-pac/05/},
    author =    {Christer Holmberg and Justin Uberti},
    title =     {{Interactive Connectivity Establishment Patiently Awaiting Connectivity (ICE PAC)}},
    pagetotal = 7,
    year =      2020,
    month =     apr,
    day =       24,
    abstract =  {During the process of establishing peer-to-peer connectivity, ICE agents can encounter situations where they have no candidate pairs to check, and, as a result, conclude that ICE processing has failed. However, because additional candidate pairs can be discovered during ICE processing, declaring failure at this point may be premature. This document discusses when these situations can occur and updates RFC8445 and RFC XXXX by requiring that an ICE agent wait a minimum amount of time before declaring ICE failure, even if there are no candidate pairs left to check. {[}RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please replace RFC XXXX with the RFC number of draft-ietf-ice-trickle once it has been published. Please also indicate that this specification updates RFC XXXX.{]}},
}