%% You should probably cite rfc9008 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-26,
    number =    {draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-26},
    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-roll-useofrplinfo/26/},
    author =    {Ines Robles and Michael Richardson and Pascal Thubert},
    title =     {{Using RPL Option Type, Routing Header for Source Routes and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation in the RPL Data Plane}},
    pagetotal = 54,
    year =      2019,
    month =     may,
    day =       15,
    abstract =  {This document looks at different data flows through LLN (Low-Power and Lossy Networks) where RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) is used to establish routing. The document enumerates the cases where RFC 6553 (RPL Option Type), RFC 6554 (Routing Header for Source Routes) and IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation is required in data plane. This analysis provides the basis on which to design efficient compression of these headers. This document updates RFC 6553 adding a change to the RPL Option Type. Additionally, this document updates RFC 6550 defining a flag in the DIO Configuration Option to indicate about this change and updates RFC8138 as well to consider the new Option Type when the RPL Option is decompressed.},
}