%% You should probably cite draft-wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support-07 instead of this revision.
@techreport{wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support-02,
    number =    {draft-wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support-02},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support/02/},
    author =    {Diego Lopez and Qin Wu and Dhruv Dhody and Daniel King},
    title =     {{IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery}},
    pagetotal = 6,
    year =      2015,
    month =     feb,
    day =       4,
    abstract =  {When a Path Computation Element (PCE) is a Label Switching Router (LSR) participating in the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), or even a server participating in IGP, its presence and path computation capabilities can be advertised using IGP flooding. The IGP extensions for PCE discovery (RFC 5088 and RFC 5089) define a method to advertise path computation capabilities using IGP flooding for OSPF and IS-IS respectively. However these specifications lack a method to advertise PCEP security (e.g., Transport Layer Security(TLS)) support capability. This document proposes new capability flag bit for PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub- TLV that can be announced as attribute in the IGP advertisement to distribute PCEP security support information.},
}