%% You should probably cite rfc7896 instead of this I-D. @techreport{ietf-pce-iro-update-05, number = {draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-05}, 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-pce-iro-update/05/}, author = {Dhruv Dhody}, title = {{Update to Include Route Object (IRO) specification in Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP)}}, pagetotal = 7, year = 2016, month = jan, day = 28, abstract = {During discussions of a document to provide a standard representation and encoding of Domain-Sequence within the Path Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs, it was determined that there was a need for clarification with respect to the ordered nature of the Include Route Object (IRO). An informal survey was conducted to determine the state of current and planned implementation with respect to IRO ordering and handling of Loose bit (L bit). This document updates RFC 5440 regarding the IRO specification, based on the survey conclusion and recommendation.}, }