%% You should probably cite rfc9353 instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-05,
    number =    {draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-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-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support/05/},
    author =    {Diego Lopez and Qin Wu and Dhruv Dhody and Qiufang Ma and Daniel King},
    title =     {{IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery}},
    pagetotal = 10,
    year =      2021,
    month =     apr,
    day =       28,
    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), TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO)) support capability. This document proposes new capability flag bits for PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV that can be announced as attribute in the IGP advertisement to distribute PCEP security support information. In addition, this document updates RFC 5088 and RFC 5089 to allow advertisement of Key ID or Key Chain Name Sub-TLV to support TCP AO security capability.},
}