%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support instead of this I-D. @techreport{wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00, number = {draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-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-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support/00/}, author = {Diego Lopez and Qin Wu and Dhruv Dhody and Zitao Wang and Daniel King}, title = {{IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery}}, pagetotal = 6, year = , month = , day = , 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.}, }