%% You should probably cite rfc9439 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-alto-performance-metrics-19,
    number =    {draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-19},
    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-alto-performance-metrics/19/},
    author =    {Qin Wu and Y. Richard Yang and Young Lee and Dhruv Dhody and Sabine Randriamasy and Luis M. Contreras},
    title =     {{ALTO Performance Cost Metrics}},
    pagetotal = 34,
    year =      2021,
    month =     oct,
    day =       24,
    abstract =  {The cost metric is a basic concept in Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO), and different applications may use different types of cost metric. Since the ALTO base protocol (RFC 7285) defines only a single cost metric (namely, the generic "routingcost" metric), if an application wants to issue a cost map or an endpoint cost request in order to identify a resource provider that offers a better delay performance, the base protocol does not define the cost metric to be used. This document addresses this issue by extending the specification to provide a variety of network performance metrics, including network delay, delay variation (jitter), packet loss rate, hop count, and bandwidth. There are multiple sources (e.g., estimation based on measurements or service-level agreement) to derive a performance metric. This document introduces an additional "cost-context" field to the ALTO "cost-type" field to convey the source of a performance metric.},
}