%% You should probably cite rfc6941 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-mpls-tp-security-framework-03,
    number =    {draft-ietf-mpls-tp-security-framework-03},
    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-tp-security-framework/03/},
    author =    {Luyuan Fang and Ben Niven-Jenkins and Scott Mansfield and Richard F. Graveman},
    title =     {{MPLS-TP Security Framework}},
    pagetotal = 25,
    year =      2012,
    month =     mar,
    day =       27,
    abstract =  {This document provides a security framework for Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP). MPLS-TP extends MPLS technologies and introduces new OAM capabilities, a transport- oriented path protection mechanism, and strong emphasis on static provisioning supported by network management systems. This document addresses the security aspects relevant in the context of MPLS-TP specifically. It describes potential security threats, security requirements for MPLS-TP, and mitigation procedures for MPLS-TP networks and MPLS-TP interconnection to other MPLS and GMPLS networks. This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network. This Informational Internet-Draft is aimed at achieving IETF Consensus before publication as an RFC and will be subject to an IETF Last Call. {[}RFC Editor, please remove this note before publication as an RFC and insert the correct Streams Boilerplate to indicate that the published RFC has IETF Consensus.{]}},
}