%% You should probably cite rfc8690 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-04,
    number =    {draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-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-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification/04/},
    author =    {Nagendra Kumar Nainar and Carlos Pignataro and Faisal Iqbal and Sasha Vainshtein},
    title =     {{Clarification of Segment ID Sub-TLV Length for RFC 8287}},
    pagetotal = 7,
    year =      2019,
    month =     aug,
    day =       8,
    abstract =  {RFC 8287 defines the extensions to perform LSP Ping and Traceroute for Segment Routing IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with the MPLS data plane. RFC 8287 proposes three Target Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Stack sub-TLVs. While RFC 8287 defines the format and procedure to handle those sub-TLVs, it does not sufficiently clarify how the length of the Segment ID sub-TLVs should be computed to be included in the Length field of the sub-TLVs. This ambiguity has resulted in interoperability issues. This document updates RFC 8287 by clarifying the length of each of the Segment ID sub-TLVs defined in RFC 8287.},
}