%% You should probably cite draft-dugeon-pce-ted-reqs-03 instead of this revision.
@techreport{dugeon-pce-ted-reqs-00,
    number =    {draft-dugeon-pce-ted-reqs-00},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dugeon-pce-ted-reqs/00/},
    author =    {Olivier Dugeon and Julien Meuric},
    title =     {{Path Computation Element (PCE) Traffic Engineering Database (TED) Requirements}},
    pagetotal = 11,
    year =      2012,
    month =     mar,
    day =       5,
    abstract =  {During the past 4 years, Path Computation Element (PCE) WG has produced a set of RFCs to standardize the behavior of the Path Computation Element as a tool to help MPLS-TE LSP tunnels placement. In the PCE architecture, a main assumption has been done concerning the information that the PCE needs to perform its computation: the Traffic Engineering Database (TED) contains all pertinent and suitable information regarding the networks that is in the scope of a PCE. Nevertheless, requirements and inventory of TED information have not been formalized. In addition, some recent RFC (like BRPC RFC 5441) or WG draft (like draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy ...) suffer from a lack of information coming from the TED resulting to a non optimal result or some difficulties to deploy them. This memo tries to identity all TED requirements for the PCE as well as provides some helps to operators to fulfill the PCE TED.},
}