Architectural Principles for a Quantum Internet
draft-irtf-qirg-principles-11

(Via drafts-eval@iana.org): IESG/Authors/ISE:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-irtf-qirg-principles-11 and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
IANA Operations Manager

IRSG Final Poll complete with enough Yes ballots to pass, but comments from Mallory and Mat to consider that might need a minor update to the draft.

[Ballot comment]
I wonder if under Goals 6.1.4 to "ensure security at the network level" there might not be an explicit mention of privacy, too, where the security of an end-user communication results in user privacy benefits in addition to the security of the network and data itself.

[Ballot comment]
I have read the document and it is very approachable despite the occasionally mind-bending subject matter. It serves as both an excellent primer for the quantum neophyte and a thoughtful analysis of the architecture, principles and goals of quantum networks. Regarding terminology, I did wonder if the concept of a quantum 'state plane', in preference to a 'data plane', would be helpful to more accurately describe the architecture, and avoid confusion between classical and quantum links. I was also expecting to read something about requirements for and challenges of synchronisation between classical and quantum links but I didn't find that in the document.

I was asked to shepherd this document by the QIRG Chairs, who are both conflicted as authors of the document. I am an intermittent participant in the work of QIRG, although have not recently been following the progression of this work. I reread the draft (although did not do a through review) and examined the mailing list activity during and after Last Call on the document. There were a number of comments during Last Call from at least 4 people, so it does seem the document got a good review from enough people, with a uniformly positive assessment of the quality and maturity of the draft. therefore, it seems appropriate to recommend its progression to IRSG review.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Angela Cacciapuoti , Bruno Rijsman , Marcello Caleffi , Rodney Van Meter , Shota Nagayama , Stephanie Wehner , Wojciech Kozlowski , irtf-chair@irtf.org, qirg-chairs@ietf.org

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Marcello Caleffi , Wojciech Kozlowski , qirg-chairs@ietf.org, Bruno Rijsman , Stephanie Wehner , Angela Cacciapuoti , Rodney Van Meter , irtf-chair@irtf.org