%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-pce-state-sync-11 instead of this revision.
@techreport{ietf-pce-state-sync-08,
    number =    {draft-ietf-pce-state-sync-08},
    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-state-sync/08/},
    author =    {Stephane Litkowski and Siva Sivabalan and Cheng Li and Haomian Zheng},
    title =     {{Procedures for Communication between Stateful Path Computation Elements}},
    pagetotal = 35,
    year =      ,
    month =     ,
    day =       ,
    abstract =  {The Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for PCEs to perform path computation in response to a Path Computation Client (PCC) request. The Stateful PCE extensions allow stateful control of Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) using PCEP. A Path Computation Client (PCC) can synchronize LSP state information to a Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE). A PCC can have multiple PCEP sessions towards multiple PCEs. There are some use cases, where an inter-PCE stateful communication can bring additional resiliency in the design, for instance when some PCC-PCE session fails. This document describes the procedures to allow stateful communication between PCEs for various use-cases and also the procedures to prevent computations loops.},
}