%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update instead of this I-D.
@techreport{touch-intarea-ipv4-unique-id-03,
    number =    {draft-touch-intarea-ipv4-unique-id-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-touch-intarea-ipv4-unique-id/03/},
    author =    {Dr. Joseph D. Touch},
    title =     {{Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field}},
    pagetotal = 15,
    year =      2010,
    month =     mar,
    day =       5,
    abstract =  {The IPv4 Identification (ID) field enables fragmentation and reassembly, and as currently specified is required to be unique within the maximum lifetime on all IP packets. If enforced, this uniqueness requirement would limit all connections to 6.4 Mbps. Because this is obviously not the case, it is clear that existing systems violate the current specification. This document updates the specification of the IP ID field to more closely reflect current practice and to more closely match IPv6, so that the field is defined only when a packet is actually fragmented and that fragmentation occurs only at originating hosts or their equivalent. When fragmentation occurs, this document recommends that the ID field be unique within the reordering context, rather than an arbitrary, unenforced upper bound on packet lifetime.},
}