A Quantum Network Architecture
draft-van-meter-qirg-quantum-network-architecture-00
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Rodney Van Meter , Naphan Benchasattabuse , Amin Taherkhani | ||
| Last updated | 2026-03-15 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-van-meter-qirg-quantum-network-architecture-00
QIRG R. Van Meter
Internet-Draft N. Benchasattabuse
Intended status: Informational A. Taherkhani
Expires: 17 September 2026 Keio University
16 March 2026
A Quantum Network Architecture
draft-van-meter-qirg-quantum-network-architecture-00
Abstract
This quantum network architecture defines a set of planes providing
different views of the network, supporting different responsibilities
and modes of operation; a set of device, node and link types; some
network topologies, deployment scenarios and their relationship to
applications; and key design decisions as a result of corresponding
requirements.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://moonshot-
nagayama-pj.github.io/draft-van-meter-qirg-quantum-network-
architecture/draft-van-meter-qirg-quantum-network-architecture.html.
Status information for this document may be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-van-meter-qirg-quantum-
network-architecture/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/moonshot-nagayama-pj/draft-van-meter-qirg-quantum-
network-architecture.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
This Internet-Draft will expire on 17 September 2026.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Goals and Non-Goals of this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Non-Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Relationship to Documents by Other Organizations . . . . . . 5
5. Prerequisite Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Applications of Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Types of Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Entangled States Consumption Patterns . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2.1. The Entanglement Information Timeline . . . . . . . . 11
7.2.2. Classification of Consumption Patterns . . . . . . . 11
7.2.3. Class Selection and Resource Implications . . . . . . 12
7.2.4. Unentangled State Tolerant (B Class) Applications . . 13
7.2.5. Reactive Correction (C Class) Applications . . . . . 13
7.2.6. Deterministic (T Class) Applications . . . . . . . . 14
8. Architectural Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Quantum Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Quantum Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.3. Quantum Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.4. Photonic Synchronization Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.5. Direct and Indirect Multicomputer Architectures . . . . . 15
8.6. Detector-centric Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.7. Source-centric Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. A Sketch of the System Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. Multicomputer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.2. Data Center Network (QDCN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.3. Local-Area Network (QLAN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.4. Wide-Area Network (QWAN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10. Quantum Optical Building Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10.1. Qubits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10.2. Photons, Wave Packets and Optical Modes . . . . . . . . 21
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
10.3. Photonic Qubits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10.4. Memories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10.5. Photon Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10.5.1. Unentangled Single Photons . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10.5.2. Entangled Photon Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10.5.3. Memory-Emitted Photons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10.6. Detectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.1. General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.1.1. Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.1.2. Interface Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.1.3. Physical Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.1.4. Environmental Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.2. Network Management Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.2.1. Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.2.2. Configuration Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
12. Top Level Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
12.1. Deterministic Classical Control of Quantum States . . . 24
13. Communication Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
14. Architectural Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
14.1. Quantum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
14.2. Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
14.3. Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
14.4. Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
15. Protocol Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
16. Nodes and Node Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
16.1. End Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
16.2. Support Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
16.3. Repeater Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
16.4. Composite Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
17. Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
17.1. The Link Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
17.2. Photonic Path Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
17.3. Point-to-point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
17.4. Switched . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
17.5. Multidrop or Bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
18. Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
19. Resource Management: Multiplexing and Routing . . . . . . . . 34
20. Classical Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
20.1. Quantum Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
20.2. Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
20.3. Data Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
20.4. Management plane: Node and link management . . . . . . . 35
20.5. Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
21. Naming and Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
21.1. State naming and management in RuleSets . . . . . . . . 36
22. Example Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
22.1. Fully Connected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
22.2. Q-Fly Multicomputer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
22.3. Optically Switched Fat Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
22.4. Repeater Fat Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
22.5. 2-D Grid Multicomputer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
22.6. Ring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
22.7. QLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
23. APIs for Network Service ("Quantum Sockets") . . . . . . . . 39
24. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
25. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
25.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
25.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
1. Introduction
This document introduces the key architectural decisions, classical
and quantum communication systems, and main node types for several
classes of quantum networks.
We define the verb _to architect_ as: within a set of environmental
constraints, using a set of building blocks, design a system that
satisfies a need, elegantly and economically. We use the noun
_architecture_ as: the set of blocks or subsystems, their roles and
their interfaces and their overall arrangement, that defines the
system. This architecture defines the overall structure, and is
connected to a specific implementation as an example.
For a description of the key concepts in quantum networks and
additional references, see [RFC9340] and the book _Quantum
Communications_ [hajdusek-qcomm].
For more background and discussion of the design choices in this
architecture, see the Ph.D. dissertation of Naphan Benchasattabuse
[res-mgmt-het].
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Goals and Non-Goals of this Document
This section describes goals and non-goals for this document itself,
rather than the technical goals and requirements for a network.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
3.1. Goals
* To define the principal concepts in a quantum network, principally
for quantum multicomputer interconnects but also data center and
wide-area networks where possible.
* To enumerate some of the key architectural decisions for this
architecture.
* To describe how device, link and node types are defined.
* To provide a guide to other documents.
3.2. Non-Goals
* Internetworking
4. Relationship to Documents by Other Organizations
Other organizations, including national laboratories and standards
development organizations, are developing documents describing
quantum networks and quantum computing technology. These are mostly
_pre-standardization_ documents, not yet on any formal
standardization track. To the extent possible, this document
conforms to their terminology. However, as this document describes a
specific quantum network architecture, it does not attempt to conform
to specific design decisions made in other contexts. See an August
2025 Science Policy Forum [aboy-governance] for additional discussion
of some standardization efforts and their value.
Some of these are listed here for reference:
* ETSI
- Industry Specification Group (ISG) on Quantum Key Distribution
(QKD) (https://www.etsi.org/committee/qkd)
* IEEE Standards Association
- IEEE Standards & Projects for Quantum Technologies
(https://standards.ieee.org/initiatives/quantum-standards-
activities/)
- Standardization Roadmap on Quantum Applications (https://ieee-
sa.imeetcentral.com/p/eAAAAAAASqm9AAAAAFU6etg)
* ISO
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
- IEC/ISO JTC 3 Quantum technologies (https://www.iso.org/
committee/10138914.html)
* ITU-T
- ITU-T Focus Group on Quantum Information Technology for
Networks (FG-QIT4N) (https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-
T/focusgroups/qit4n/Pages/default.aspx)
- Y.3800 series (https://www.itu.int/itu-t/recommendations/
index.aspx?ser=Y) on quantum key distribution networks
* National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
- Single-Photon Sources and Detectors Dictionary [nist-singles]
* Quantum Internet Research Group (QIRG)
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/qirg/about/) (part of IRTF)
- [RFC9340]
- [RFC9583]
5. Prerequisite Knowledge
This document assumes basic knowledge of the underlying technology
and goals of quantum communications. The following list of topics
may help readers who are not yet familiar with the concepts.
* Linear algebra
* Quantum information basics
- Dirac ket notation
- von Neumann density matrix notation
- Superposition
- Entanglement
- Interference
- Unitary operation
- Measurement
- Decoherence
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
- No-cloning theorem
- Clifford group
- Basics of quantum error correction (QEC)
* Classical Internet-family networking
* Quantum networking
- Teleportation
- Purification
- Entanglement swapping
- Quantum key distribution: BB84, E91, BBM92
- "Generations" of quantum repeaters
- (Repeater graph states may be helpful, but are not used in the
current architecture)
Because terms such as _fidelity_ have varying definitions, they will
be defined in this set of documents (where? Timing Regimes?).
Readers needing additional background are referred to:
* [RFC9340]
* [RFC9583]
* Van Meter, _Quantum Networking_ [van-meter-q-net-book]
* Hajdusek and Van Meter, _Quantum Communications_ [hajdusek-qcomm]
6. Terminology
In this document, we use the abbreviations and other related
technical terms listed in the following table:
+=================+================================================+
| Term | Description |
+=================+================================================+
| BSA | Bell state analyzer, generally optical and |
| | incorporating one or more beamsplitters and |
| | either two or four single-photon detectors |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
| device | manipulates photons in some fashion; a |
| | component of a node |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| FASQ | fault-tolerant application-scale quantum |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| fidelity | measures how close a quantum state is to the |
| | state we have tried to create. Varies between |
| | 0 and 1, with unit fidelity indicating the |
| | actual state is the same as the desired state. |
| | It expresses the probability that the state |
| | will behave exactly the same as our desired |
| | state. (adapted from RFC 9340) |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| group switch | In the Q-Fly architecture, the set of devices |
| | that connect the end nodes to the pool of |
| | BSAs, and the group to other groups |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| NISQ | near-term intermediate-scale quantum |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| node | a self-contained subsystem with a clear |
| | boundary that is visible to other such nodes |
| | as a single entity on one or more planes |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| optical mode | roughly, a place and time that a photon might |
| | be, which may be occupied by some, all or none |
| | of the amplitude of a single photon. More |
| | accurately, it is a field distribution |
| | obtained from solving Maxwell's equations |
| | given some boundary conditions. An optical |
| | mode is an eigensolution of the wave equation |
| | given the physical properties of the waveguide |
| | (dimensions, refractive index). It is a |
| | particular field distribution that can |
| | propagate through the waveguide. The state of |
| | a single photon can be expressed as a coherent |
| | superposition of such optical modes. For |
| | optics engineers, a 'mode' (or optical mode to |
| | be more precise) refers to a specific |
| | spatiotemporal distribution of electromagnetic |
| | field fluctuation. For quantum network |
| | engineers, especially those that would most |
| | likely be reading RFCs, two optical detectors |
| | are detecting different optical modes if one |
| | detector can be activated by light without |
| | activating the other. In that case, it is not |
| | wrong to say that the two detectors are |
| | detecting two independent optical modes. |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
| path | the set of nodes and links that a connection |
| | passes through, including the end points |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| plane | a view of the entire network for a particular |
| (architectural) | purpose, such as management or data |
| | transmission |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| plane (optical) | a defined plane in physical space through |
| | which a photon passes; also referred to as a |
| | surface |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| QBER | quantum bit error rate |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| QNIC | quantum network interface card; in practice, |
| | the physical interface to a link plus the set |
| | of quantum memories under the control of the |
| | network stack. |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| QPU | quantum processing unit |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| RuleSet | a set of SDN-inspired, event-driven, short, |
| | real-time or near-real time, near- |
| | determininistic programs executed at nodes |
| | along a path to build application-requested |
| | entangled states |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| SNSPD | Superconducting Nanowire Single Photon |
| | Detector |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| multiqubit | tensor product of Pauli operators acting on |
| Pauli operators | two or more qubits |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| switch point | a 2x2 junction that can be either X (cross) or |
| | = (straight) |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| switch device | a single integrated, fiber- or free space- |
| | connected (physical) component, comprising one |
| | or more switch points |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| teledata | application execution via teleporting data |
| | from node to node, then executing gates |
| | locally. May be done remotely, mediated by |
| | Bell pairs. |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| telegate | application execution via remote gates (as |
| | defined by Eisert et al.). May be done |
| | remotely, mediated by Bell pairs. |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
| time bin | compare to window and time slot |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| time slot | compare to window and time bin |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| window | compare to time bin and time slot |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
Table 1
7. Applications of Networks
The requirements for a network are determined by the application
workload. This section orients architectural decisions by briefly
introducing applications and the communication patterns they exhibit,
which is a key factor determining the suitability of particular
architectures.
7.1. Types of Applications
Applications fall into two large categories: inherently distributed
applications, or subdivision of monolithic applications for
distributed execution, as in supercomputing applications running on
multicomputer architectures.
For a discussion of some inherently distributed applications of
quantum networks, see [RFC9583]. This network architecture supports
the applications listed in that RFC, though not all networks will
support all applications.
7.2. Entangled States Consumption Patterns
(Adapted and extended from unpublished text in
[van-meter-opt-timing].)
Distinct from the classification of quantum repeater generations by
Muralidharan et al. [muralidharan-generations], one can categorize
distributed quantum systems by how applications interface with the
network; specifically, the timing at which network interface qubits
are freed after attempting entangled state generation.
In the early days of quantum information research, Bennett et al.
recognized [bennett-mixed] that the component qubits of an entangled
state may be held at different times in different locations, termed
_time-separated Bell pairs_. Based on this principle, we can describe
the timeline of information availability between two nodes. This
model assumes entangled states are requested dynamically during
execution, rather than pre-caching entangled
states [schoute-shortcuts] for immediate consumption.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
7.2.1. The Entanglement Information Timeline
The lifecycle of an entanglement request, from initiation to full
state knowledge, follows three distinct stages:
1. *Attempt:* The entangled states are requested. For memory-based
links, this corresponds to the quantum memory emitting a photon
and transmitting it through the link.
2. *Heralded:* The entangled states are physically established, but
the specific states are unknown. The node has received
confirmations that photons arrived at the BSA and the BSM
succeeded, but the Pauli frame information is not yet available.
3. *Correct:* The classical message regarding the Pauli frame
arrives. The node now knows the exact entangled state created
and can apply corrections (or software frame updates) to align
with the expected state.
7.2.2. Classification of Consumption Patterns
Based on the timeline above, we classify Bell pair consumption into
three classes [van-meter-opt-timing]. These classes are defined by
whether the application must *block execution* while waiting for
information at the _Heralded_ or _Correct_ stages. Note that the
term "blocking" here refers to the blocking versus non-blocking
execution models, similar to kernel-level I/O blocking or the event-
driven programming paradigm, and is distinct from the concept of
blocking in network switches.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
+================+============+========+===========================+
| Class | Wait for | Wait | Application Behavior |
| | Heralding? | for | |
| | | Pauli | |
| | | Frame? | |
+================+============+========+===========================+
| *Unentangled | No | No | *Non-Blocking:* The |
| State Tolerant | | | application consumes the |
| (B)* | | | qubit immediately, |
| | | | handling failures or |
| | | | corrections in post- |
| | | | processing. |
+----------------+------------+--------+---------------------------+
| *Reactive | Yes* | No | *Partially Blocking:* The |
| Correction | | | application waits only |
| (C)* | | | for confirmation of |
| | | | existence (heralding), |
| | | | then proceeds by tracking |
| | | | errors in software. |
+----------------+------------+--------+---------------------------+
| *Deterministic | Yes | Yes | *Strictly Blocking:* The |
| (T)* | | | application blocks until |
| | | | the state is fully |
| | | | verified and corrected. |
+----------------+------------+--------+---------------------------+
Table 2
_*Note for Class C: If the link is fully deterministic (guaranteeing
success), the application does not need to pause for heralding and
become non-blocking._
7.2.3. Class Selection and Resource Implications
It is important to note that these classes are determined by the
*nodes*, not the network. The application nodes assess their own
capabilities (number of buffer memories, gate and qubit error rate)
and the network's performance (fidelity, rate, success probability)
to select the appropriate operating class.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
The selection of a class significantly impacts network resource
utilization. For example, if a node possesses sufficient buffer
memory, it may elect to operate in *Class B* from the perspective of
the network interface. By moving the entangled state from the
communication qubit to storage immediately (or measuring it
immediately), the node frees up the network interface to service
other requests. This reduces the workload on the network and
increases the repetition rate, even if the application logic itself
eventually requires the data for a Class T operation.
7.2.4. Unentangled State Tolerant (B Class) Applications
The defining characteristic of B Class applications is the ability to
consume the (potential) entangled states immediately without waiting
(fully non-blocking). The application effectively takes over the
burden of validation from the network.
*Execution Flow:* The application does not stop. It measures or
stores the qubit immediately. If the entanglement attempt failed
(information received later), the data is discarded or treated as an
erasure error.
*Examples:*
* *Classical Correlation:* Applications like Quantum Key
Distribution (QKD) protocols (e.g., E91) or link fidelity
estimation. The application filters out failed attempts during
classical post-processing.
* *Fault-Tolerant Operations:* Certain remote quantum error
correction schemes, such as remote lattice surgery
[horsman-lattice-surgery], [ramette-remote], [leone-remote],
[sinclair-ft-interconnect] of the surface code. If the
probability of creating a link is high enough, unsuccessful
attempts can be treated as depolarizing errors, which the logical
code can tolerate without stalling the pipeline.
7.2.5. Reactive Correction (C Class) Applications
In C Class applications, the system requires confirmation that a link
exists, but does not wait for the state details. The application
proceeds by assuming a specific Bell state and managing deviations
via software tracking.
*Execution Flow:* The application pauses briefly to ensure the Bell
pair is _Heralded_. Once confirmed, it executes immediately. It does
not wait for the _Correct_ stage (Pauli frame); instead, it uses a
"Pauli Frame Tracker" to propagate the necessary corrections through
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
the circuit virtually. If the network link is deterministic, the
specific wait for heralding is removed, as the node assumes success
by default.
*Examples:* Clifford circuit execution, distributed Pauli-based
computation with time-optimal scheme [litinski-gosc], and state
teleportation.
7.2.6. Deterministic (T Class) Applications
T Class applications impose the strictest timing constraints,
requiring the entangled state to idle the longest before being
consumed.
*Execution Flow:* The application *completely stalls*. It must wait
until the network provides both the confirmation of creation
(_Heralded_) and the specific state information (_Correct_).
Execution only resumes once the exact state is known or corrected.
*Examples:* Execution of circuits involving non-Clifford gates.
While non-Clifford operations _can_ theoretically be corrected post
hoc (similar to Class C), doing so often requires consuming
_additional_ entangled states to fix the error. Since consuming
extra resources is more costly than waiting, these operations default
to Class T to ensure the state is correct before proceeding.
8. Architectural Concepts
This section introduces concepts in classical and quantum computer
and network architecture that may be unfamiliar, or that have a
specific role in this network architecture.
8.1. Quantum Devices
A quantum device stores, carries, measures or computes on quantum
variables.
A quantum device (often shortened to just "device" in this
specification) is under software control; i.e. optical fibers or beam
splitters are not classified as quantum devices.
Control of devices is usually done with respect to some physical
characteristic of the device itself, rather than dealing with the
abstract notion of qubits. A controllable wave plate, for example,
may be adjusted in units of degrees of rotation of the plate. An
example of a software package that provides such functionality is
PnPQ.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
8.2. Quantum Nodes
A node comprises one or more quantum devices, and serves as a single
locus of control for network protocols. The classes of nodes are
described later in this document.
8.3. Quantum Links
Links are described in Section 17.
8.4. Photonic Synchronization Domains
A photonic synchronization domain (PSD) is the range of devices and
fibers over which photons must be controlled with high precision in
order to effect e.g. photonic entanglement swapping [mori-psds]. The
primary concern of a PSD is getting photons to arrive at
beamsplitters "simultaneously", with sufficient overlap, as specified
in [I-D.draft-hajdusek-qirg-timing-physics].
8.5. Direct and Indirect Multicomputer Architectures
In multicomputer architectures, a _direct_ architecture features
links that go directly from computational node to computational node.
Hypercubes, meshes and toruses are typically direct architectures.
An _indirect_ architecture interposes one or more switches between
computational nodes. Fat trees, Clos and Benes networks, and the
various -fly topologies are generally indirect [dally-towles].
The distinction is somewhat artificial in that direct architectures
sometimes incorporate a small switch inside the node, in which case
the matching term depends on where you draw the boundary of the node,
and because computational nodes can be configured to act only as
routers within the network, modeling an indirect architecture using
direct hardware.
8.6. Detector-centric Architecture
Several detectors may be packaged as a single subsystem for purposes
such as cooling, power, control and time stamping. An architecture
built around a shared pool of detectors is a _detector-centric
architecture_. This structure facilities entanglement distribution in
a quantum system interconnect, data center network or some forms of
local area network.
A detector-centric architecture is an indirect architecture if the
pool of detectors is behind a switch or network of switches.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
8.7. Source-centric Architecture
Many of the detector-centric network topologies can be inverted, such
that the pool of detectors is replaced by a pool of entangled photon
pair sources. The network then is used to distribute entanglement,
with the photons measured, absorbed into memories, interfered with
locally generated photons, or otherwise utilized at or near the end
nodes. Such a network was proposed by Drost _et al._ [drost].
9. A Sketch of the System Model
As noted in the 2022 roadmap for quantum interconnects
[awschalom-roadmap], entangled quantum network technology can be
deployed in a variety of scenarios with different requirements and
assumptions. A full description of each of these is delegated to
other documents, but a brief description here will help to orient
discussions of design points in order to justify certain decisions.
9.1. Multicomputer
The first deployment of production-level, distant quantum
entanglement is likely to be in a _quantum multicomputer_, based on
the same principles as classical distributed-memory supercomputers
from the Caltech Cosmic Cube (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Caltech_Cosmic_Cube) to Fugaku (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Fugaku_(supercomputer)) [rdv-thesis]. Multicomputer deployments will
likely involve computational nodes, optical switches, Bell state
analyzers, and possibly entangled photon pair sources (all defined
below). Quantum repeaters with memory are less likely to be deployed
in multicomputers, though one such architecture [choi-fat-tree] has
been proposed. Because the current technology roadmaps favor this
type of deployment, where design choices are in conflict or unclear,
multicomputer designs are given priority over wide-area networks in
this set of specifications.
The execution model is expected to be much like the classical
supercomputing Message Passing Interface (MPI)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_Passing_Interface).
General hardware environment:
* A multicomputer consists of a set of quantum nodes that are
connected via quantum optical channels. The system may be either
a direct (point-to-point, end node-to-end node) or an indirect
(switched) design.
* Every quantum node has a set of quantum devices and a classical
controller.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
* End nodes are generally computational nodes, but measurement-only,
sensor, and specialized memory storage nodes may be included.
* End nodes are capable of running application programs as well as
executing the minimum operations to build end-to-end entangled
states.
* End nodes may be built using multi-level hardware interconnects;
when gates between physically distant qubits are mediated by first
creating shared entangled states, the creation of those entangled
states is the responsibility of the network subsystem.
* Multicomputer interconnects are closed systems, with no need for
cryptographic security mechanisms.
Many aspects of compilation and job execution are beyond the scope of
this set of specifications, but some points will affect the network
node definitions and interfaces, so it is important to present them
here to establish a basis for design decisions:
* The general purpose of a multicomputer system is to execute
application programs that exceed the capabilities of a single
quantum node. The subdivision of the application into smaller
quantum programs and the assignment of those sub-programs to nodes
in the network is beyond the scope of this specification, and may
be either automatically done by the compiler or manually done by
the programmer.
* Programs are centrally compiled and distributed to nodes. (Note
that, technically, this is different from classical MPI, where a
_command_ is sent to worker nodes, but the mapping of that command
to an executable program and versioning and distribution of
programs are outside the scope of MPI. It is, however, a
convenient assumption and common practice to ensure the same
program is executed at all worker nodes.)
* Execution is coordinated by a job controller: every node executes
the same program, but with different parameters (e.g., which
portion of the problem to work on).
* Applications consist of both classical computation and quantum
computation; within a node, the classical portion of the program
delegates certain computational tasks to the quantum processor
(sometimes called a QPU), similar to a classical coprocessor
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprocessor) such as a GPU
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_processing_unit).
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
* Classical data related to quantum operations (principally
measurement results and event notifications that trigger further
actions) is sent peer-to-peer, not back to the centralized
controller, during execution.
* Within the runtime system, the interface between the (portion of
the) application running at each node's classical controller is
analogous to the interface between an application and the MPI
messaging system or a socket (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Network_socket) in an ordinary Internet application. This quantum
socket is an active area of research and is not defined here.
* The creation of sequences of end-to-end entangled states, roughly
equivalent to TCP, is the responsibility of RuleSets, inspired by
software-defined networking (SDN) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Software-defined_networking). A RuleSet can also be viewed as
something like a Berkeley Packet Filter (BPF): it's a small
program that handled actions that the application could do, but
the application can't achieve the low, reliable latency to do it.
* In principle, all nodes are running the same program, distributed
to all nodes. Since the compiled application circuits are often
parameter- or input-dependent as well, separate nodes may have
separate instances of the application. This may result in a small
additional burden on the execution management system.
* In principle, the application and the communication system are
separately compiled and managed. However, in practice the RuleSet
may be compiled as part of the application by using a library of
network functions. (As with classical parallel program runtime
systems, the boundary between the application program, supplied
libraries, and the kernel itself (if any) is implementation-
dependent.)
* Compiling the network communication into the application program
eliminates the need for separate program and RuleSet distribution
protocols. However, the event messages that are part of the
architecturally defined RuleSet operation are sent and received as
usual, such that the behavior of the node is the same regardless
of such implementation choices.
* Compilation and execution may achieve application goals via
teledata, telegate or measurement of multiqubit Pauli operators
transparently; the network is unaware of this distinction.
Management of application-level variables and their movement from
node to node, if any, is the responsibility of the compiler and is
beyond the scope of this specification.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
* The resources in a multicomputer may be partitioned to run
multiple jobs [sane-jobs], but this is beyond the scope of the
current specifications.
The realities of quantum hardware result in a few important
differences from classical multicomputers:
* Multicomputer interconnects may be either optically switched or
composed entirely of point-to-point links. In switched networks,
depending on optical hardware as well as photonic qubit
representation, reconfiguring the switch or switches may be an
extremely high-latency operation.
* Application execution at end nodes proceeds in phases tied to
specific communication patterns. Even with a fixed sequence of
application-level operations, the execution time of a phase can be
variable because entanglement generation is probabilistic. Local
gates can also be probabilistic under some circumstances, but for
many node hardware types, fast local gate execution means the
impact of variable gate execution time will be small.
* In switched systems, reconfiguration of switches is centrally
coordinated between phases. Thus, while classical data moves
directly node-to-node during autonomous phase execution, advancing
from phase to phase must be done at the direction of the job
controller.
* Because execution is centrally coordinated, the network system is
not required to provide multiplexing. (This is a substantial
difference from data center networks, QLANs and QWANs.)
* The compiler may include multihop communication within a phase
using hop-by-hop teleportation without reconfiguring any switches;
this is beyond the scope of this architecture.
* Execution of the quantum portion of the node program generally
involves hard real-time actions, both unconditional and
conditioned on prior quantum measurement results. This generally
requires compilation of the quantum program to very low-level
actions to be executed by FPGAs or ASICs.
* Systems may be partially or completely emulated, decoupling
development of different subsystems. e.g., an EPPS plus a MEAS
together can emulate a COMP node that emits single photons.
* Systems may be noisy, intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ); near-
term, small-scale fault tolerant; or fault-tolerant, application-
scale quantum (FASQ).
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
* Quantum error correction is above the level of these
specifications, but may involve distributed lattice surgery
[ramette-remote], [leone-remote], or [sinclair-ft-interconnect].
9.2. Data Center Network (QDCN)
The hardware for quantum data center networks will be almost
identical to multicomputers; the primary differences are in the
workload, scheduling, programming model and assumptions of trust.
Distributed control and protocols for multiplexing and connection
setup may be necessary.
9.3. Local-Area Network (QLAN)
A QLAN will be deployed within a building or across a campus. It may
connect quantum computers (including but not necessarily
multicomputers) and sensors. A sensor, for example, may be connected
to a computer with substantial memory for e.g. shadow tomography,
learning from few measurements and related protocols.
A QLAN will have a less regular topology than a multicomputer or
QDCN. Distance, latency, fidelity, and success probability will all
vary on a per-link basis.
Distributed control and protocols for multiplexing and connection
setup are necessary.
9.4. Wide-Area Network (QWAN)
Wide-area networks may involve client-server or peer-to-peer
communication. One particular scenario of interest is a measurement-
only (MEAS) client end node connecting to a centralized,
supercomputer-scale quantum computer (perhaps, but not necessarily, a
multicomputer) for the purposes of executing _blind quantum
computation_ [fitzsimons-blind], [morimae-blind].
QWAN client-server communication very likely will suffer from the
"incast" problem of excessive traffic concentrating near certain
nodes. Management of this problem is beyond the scope of this
document.
10. Quantum Optical Building Blocks
This section informally describes the physical building blocks and
concepts used in the physical layer of a quantum network.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
10.1. Qubits
In this network architecture, we use only qubits, which may have two
states identified as 0 and 1. Quantum information systems using
qutrits, qudits, qunats or continuous variable (c.v.) quantum states
are beyond the scope of the current set of specifications.
Qubits (also defined in RFC 9340) must conform to a sufficient subset
of the DiVincenzo criteria [divincenzo-criteria].
10.2. Photons, Wave Packets and Optical Modes
Optical mode (link-layer view).
An optical mode is a well-defined slot of a physical link, specified
by path, time window, frequency, polarization, or similar parameters,
such that the receiver can be configured to monitor that slot and
determine whether it is occupied by at least one photon or is empty.
The mode exists regardless of whether a photon is present; a photon
is an excitation of the mode, not the mode itself.
In quantum networking, link capacity and state must be described in
terms of modes (slots), not photons; photons merely occupy modes,
while empty modes correspond to vacuum states that are still
physically and operationally meaningful.
Technical note: In idealized models, distinct modes correspond to
orthogonal field solutions, ensuring perfect distinguishability.
Short example: A quantum optical link may define one mode per time
window. During each window, the receiver monitors the mode. A
detection event indicates that the mode was occupied by at least one
photon; the absence of a detection indicates that the same mode was
empty. Both outcomes correspond to distinct physical states of the
link.
10.3. Photonic Qubits
Photons are used in networks to carry qubits. There are several
possible on-the-wire photonic qubit representations, e.g.
* Polarization
* Time bin
* Which path
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
* Energy level (wavelength)
These representations and more about the concept of an _optical mode_
are discussed in the Standard Photons document, and are provided here
only for informational purposes.
10.4. Memories
For our purposes, we do not need to worry about the physical
implementation of memories, only that they may hold quantum data
(qubits) that may be under the management of the network software and
protocols. They may be entangled with photons or with other memory
qubits.
Generally, the creation or entanglement of a state in memory is
imperfect, and the memory has a finite lifetime.
The entanglement of a memory qubit with a photon is a technology-
dependent process. To create fiber-compatible and optical equipment-
compatible photons, wavelength conversion via transduction may be
necessary. In 2025, transduction is a low-probability process, and
hurts fidelity as well.
10.5. Photon Sources
Photons may be emitted by _sources_ of many types [nist-singles] .
Single photons may come from attenuated lasers, or be emitted by a
variety of quantum devices, such as quantum dots, or by individual
atoms.
Photons may be unentangled, entangled with other photons, or
entangled with quantum memories.
10.5.1. Unentangled Single Photons
Unentangled photons exhibit quantum properties. They can carry
information in any of the characteristics listed above, and may be
put into a superposition of multiple basis states for e.g. quantum
key distribution purposes. In this document, unentangled individual
photons are not used.
10.5.2. Entangled Photon Pairs
Pairs of photons entangled with each other can be made via a variety
of physical processes. Devices that make such pairs can be
components of nodes such as the Entangled Photon Pair Source (EPPS),
described in a separate document.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
10.5.3. Memory-Emitted Photons
Photons emitted by quantum memories, such as single atoms, may remain
entangled to the memory, if the memory was in a superposition of
basis states.
10.6. Detectors
Detectors may be either _single-photon detectors_, which click when
_one or more_ photons hit the detector, or _number resolving
detectors_, which can distinguish between one, two, or more photons
hitting the detector within the same time window [nist-singles]. In
this document, detectors may be assumed to be single-photon
detectors.
11. Requirements
This section documents the requirements for all networks adhering to
this architecture.
11.1. General Requirements
11.1.1. Functional Requirements
* Operates on qubits. (Qutrits, qudits, qunats and continuous-
variable systems are out of scope of this architecture, except
where physical or link layers present such physical variables as
qubits.)
* Is independent of physical implementation of memories, photonic
data representations, etc. (Multipartite states created by the
network are not a requirement of the network.)
* Supports pairwise Bell pair creation between nodes with one or
more of the B, C or T timing classes above.
* The architecture must support deployments ranging from
multicomputer to wide area networks.
* The architecture must support multiple photonic synchronization
domains, as either point-to-point or optically switched paths.
The architecture must support some form of buffering between PSDs.
* The architecture must support entanglement swapping. (Note that
single PSD deployments may not need entanglement swapping.)
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
* The architecture must support evolution of single-photon,
unentangled, single-purpose quantum key distribution networks to
fully entangled, multipurpose networks.
11.1.2. Interface Requirements
* Supports one or more applications, such as the ones in [RFC9583],
with APIs consistent with the B, C, or T classes.
* The network must enable applications to match quantum states at
each end of the Bell pair by name.
11.1.3. Physical Requirements
Physical requirements such as distance, wavelength, vibration, power,
etc. will be case-dependent.
11.1.4. Environmental Requirements
Physical requirements such as distance, wavelength, vibration, power,
etc. will be case-dependent.
11.2. Network Management Requirements
11.2.1. Fault Management
* Supports isolation of hardware and software faults.
* Supports monitoring and reporting of fidelity.
11.2.2. Configuration Management
* The architecture must support the use of both manual and automated
network configuration tools.
12. Top Level Architecture
12.1. Deterministic Classical Control of Quantum States
This network architecture is entirely classically controlled. Its
task is to generate shared quantum states for applications residing
at separate nodes. While many quantum events are inherently
probabilistic, and loss of photons is also inherently probabilistic,
this architecture does not use multipartite quantum states for e.g.
routing of two-party requests. (An extension of this network
architecture may support generation of multi-partite state for
applications at a later date.)
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
13. Communication Service
(Substantial portions of this section are adapted from Naphan
Benchasattabuse's Ph.D. thesis, which in turn is adapted from earlier
papers by Van Meter et al. [van-meter-qi-arch] and others.)
The design of a quantum network must begin with a clear definition of
its fundamental services --- what quantum states or capabilities the
network is expected to provide to end users. These decisions
determine the complexity of the protocols at the network layer and
the applications that run above it. A minimalist design treats _Bell
pairs_ as the primary network-level service. Bell pairs serve as the
smallest unit of entanglement and the foundation for nearly all
quantum communication protocols. Restricting the service to Bell
pair distribution simplifies the network's responsibilities.
However, this approach shifts complexity to the applications, which
must construct multipartite or fault-tolerant states themselves and
manage the coordination overhead that entails.
At the other end of the spectrum, networks may offer richer services
such as multipartite entangled states [ghz], [dur-w-state],
[hein-multiparty], [hein-graph-entanglement] or fault-tolerant state
teleportation. While applications can, in theory, synthesize these
states from Bell pairs, direct network-level support may offer
efficiency gains and reduce sensitivity to noise by internalizing
complex procedures like direct graph state generations or supporting
the delivery of error-correcting code encoded logical qubits.
In our architecture, we adopt Bell pair distribution as the core
network service, as it allows for a well-scoped, foundational
architectural framework.
Importantly, the semantics of Bell pair distribution are not merely
those of passive delivery. Even in this basic model, distributed
quantum computation occurs along the path via entanglement swapping,
possibly combined with purification at intermediate repeater nodes.
A proper service definition must account for this processing, as it
directly affects fidelity, latency, and trust assumptions in the
network.
In addition to quantum state delivery, timing information is often a
critical part of the service. Applications in distributed quantum
sensing and clock synchronization [degen-sensing],
[proctor-quantum-sensing], [proctor-multiparm], [giovannetti-metro],
[gottesman-telescope], [ilo-okeke-clock] require precise knowledge of
when entanglement was established or when measurement events
occurred. Hence, high-precision timestamps may need to be bundled
into the service interface offered by the network.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
14. Architectural Planes
All nodes in the network will have one or more of the following
classes of interfaces, also referred to as _planes_.
* *Quantum:* The quantum signals and in-channel, hardware-dependent,
real-time classical signals for timing and synchronization of
photon wave packets. A node with a quantum plane incorporates one
or more quantum devices. The quantum devices may be local or
remote.
* *Data:* Classical data plane for exchange of messages about in-
progress quantum communication sessions. Generally, the data
plane consists of _event notifications_ and _measurement results_
related to RuleSet-driven connections or testing sessions. A data
plane must be accompanied by a control plane.
* *Control:* Classical control plane for establishing and managing
connections and testing sessions. Routing and multiplexing
messages are included in the control plane.
* *Management:* Network management for configuring the devices and
monitoring operation. Managing services provided by nodes,
security, addressing, etc., and monitoring health of links,
collecting statistics on traffic through the node, any alerts such
as security, etc.
14.1. Quantum
The quantum signals and in-channel, hardware-dependent, real-time
classical signals for timing and synchronization of photon wave
packets. A node with a quantum plane incorporates one or more
quantum devices. The quantum devices may be local or remote.
The quantum plane functionality executes the functions described as
"Interferometric Stabilization" and "Wave Packet Overlap" and subject
to the constraints in "Detector Timing Windows" in the Timing Regimes
document.
14.2. Data
When operating in qubit mode, the Data Plane consists of classical
messages that convey events for RuleSet operation and the
communication ports and software that generate and consume such
messages.
When operating in device mode, the Data Plane consists of RPCs for
controlling individual devices.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
Data plane functions may share data with management plane functions
as part of the link management process, e.g. using disti-mation. If
this is done, security and privacy concerns must be addressed.
The control plane functionality executes the functions described as
"Pre-configured Event-driven Tasks" in the Timing Regimes document.
14.3. Control
The classical control plane is responsible for establishing and
managing connections and testing sessions. Routing and multiplexing
messages are included in the control plane.
Control plane functions may share data with management plane
functions, e.g. sharing parameter adjustment values and timings. If
this is done, security and privacy concerns must be addressed.
The control plane functionality executes the functions described as
"Measurement basis selection", "Optical switch control" and some
tasks in "Host-side Application-level Tasks" in the Timing Regimes
document.
14.4. Management
While connection-specific changes to configuration, such as switching
and necessary, immediate changes to e.g. polarization and optical
delay may appear as control plane functions, slow-rate monitoring and
adjustment of parameters such as timing or polarization due to drift
in temperature, voltage or other parameters is the responsibility of
the management plane. The management plane may receive useful data
on the health and fidelity of links as a result of data plane and
control plane operations.
The management plane functionality executes the functions described
as "Background Tasks" in the Timing Regimes document.
15. Protocol Layers
This document describes a network architecture. Network designs are
often described in terms of a layered protocol stack such as the
7-layer OSI model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model), although
the Internet can be more accurately described as a three-, four-, or
five-layer model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Internet_protocol_suite#Layering_evolution_and_representations_in_the_literature),
depending in part on whether a distinction is made between the
physical and link layers and in part on how the application layer is
subdivided.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
In a layered network architecture, each layer processes a prepended
header to complete its task. As messages move down the stack (from
application toward actual transmission), they may be subdivided into
smaller units, and additional layer-specific headers are prepended.
On receipt, headers are removed as the message moves up the stack,
and boundaries between messages may be altered.
A complete network architecture consists of much more than the layers
processing individual packets; many of the critical supporting
protocols around naming, routing, security, network management, etc.
utilize messages carried using the same protocol stack designed for
application data.
In a quantum network, this layering is less clear.
(More to be added here.)
16. Nodes and Node Types
(Substantial portions of this section are adapted from Naphan
Benchasattabuse's Ph.D. thesis, which in turn is adapted from earlier
papers by Van Meter et al. and others.)
The architecture of a quantum network is defined by its constituent
nodes and their specialized functions. For clarity in describing our
system, we group these nodes according to their primary contributions
to network operation. In our architecture, we classify nodes into
three main types: end nodes, for application interaction; repeater
and router nodes, for extending entanglement and path management; and
support nodes, for auxiliary operational tasks.
The qNode specification provides additional details on the common
roles and responsibilities of all quantum network nodes, and serves
as the equivalent of the Internet hosts requirements RFCs [RFC1122],
[RFC1123]. Each node type is further defined in a detailed
specification in a separate document.
16.1. End Nodes
End nodes represent hosts that wish to execute a quantum application
such as quantum key distribution, secret sharing and blind quantum
computation [broadbent-bfk-protocol], [fitzsimons-blind]. The
technological maturity required of an end node heavily depends on the
desired application. There are four major kinds of end nodes:
*A measurement (MEAS) node* is the most basic type of quantum end
node, designed primarily for protocols that do not require quantum
state storage. Its core capability is to receive individual photons
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
and perform measurements on them in at least two different bases.
Lacking quantum memory, MEAS nodes are well-suited for applications
like quantum key distribution (QKD) or as simple terminals in certain
forms of secure delegated computation protocols
[morimae-blind],[fitzsimons-blind], typically interacting with the
network in a synchronous manner where measurement results directly
yield classical data.
*A sensor (SNSR) node* is a specialized end node designed to utilize
entangled states, often shared with distant parties, for high-
precision measurements of physical quantities, for clock
synchronization tasks, or for distributed sensing tasks [ge-linear],
[proctor-quantum-sensing], [degen-sensing], [giovannetti-metro],
[proctor-multiparm]. These nodes typically feature limited quantum
memory to hold working qubits (e.g., one half of an entangled pair)
and possess specific quantum processing capabilities tailored for
sensing protocols. Such capabilities include performing joint
measurements, like Bell State Measurements (BSMs), between their
stored qubits and photons that have interacted with the environment
[huang-imaging-stars], [gottesman-telescope]. While an SNSR node's
internal processing is specialized, certain sensing applications may
also necessitate high-rate entanglement generation from the network
to achieve desired performance. For SNSR nodes, precise timing
information is almost invariably a critical component of the service
they provide or require, and their operation typically culminates in
outputting classical data that corresponds to the sensed phenomenon.
*A store (STOR) node* is a specialized end node whose primary
function is to serve as a high-fidelity quantum data repository. Its
core capabilities are the long-term storage of quantum states---often
prepared and teleported from other locations---and the ability to
teleport these states out on demand. While a STOR node does not
require a universal gate set, it must support certain gates (e.g.,
Clifford gates) for active quantum error correction to preserve the
stored quantum data. This includes using quantum error-correcting
codes to protect against decoherence, along with mitigation
strategies for correlated errors from events such as cosmic ray
strikes [martinis-correlated], [sane-phonons], [xu-dist-qec],
[vepsaelaeinen-ionizing], [wu-mitigating], [li-cosmic]. In a network
context, STOR nodes may function as data servers, enabling
asynchronous applications where valuable states are prepared and
stored for later retrieval.
*A computational (COMP) node* represents a full-fledged quantum
processing endpoint within the network. Equipped with quantum memory
and additional algorithmic qubits, it can store, manipulate, and
perform complex computations on quantum states received from the
network or generated locally. COMP nodes support a wide range of
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
advanced quantum network applications, including distributed quantum
algorithms, more general forms of blind quantum computation, and
potentially fault-tolerant quantum computing, often requiring
asynchronous interfaces to coordinate their local quantum workloads
with network operations [ambainis-multiparty-coin], [taherkhani-byz],
[mayers-unconditional], [christandl-anon], [broadbent-bfk-protocol],
[fitzsimons-blind], [mahadev-homomorphic], [dulek-homomorphic],
[shapourian-qdc-infra], [sutcliffe-dist-qec], [yoder-tour-de-gross].
[kim-ft-million].
16.2. Support Nodes
*An entangled photon pair source (EPPS)* is a device dedicated to
generating pairs of entangled photons, commonly through processes
like Spontaneous Parametric Down-Conversion (SPDC). These entangled
photons are then typically distributed over quantum channels to be
captured or measured at link endpoints, forming the initial resource
for entanglement-based protocols. EPPS nodes can be deployed in
various scenarios, including terrestrial fiber links or free-space
satellite-to-ground communication [fittipaldi-sat],
[haldar-sat-dist], [khatri-spooky], [yin-1200km].
*A Bell state analyzer (BSA)* is a crucial component for performing
projective measurements on two incoming photons, ideally projecting
their combined state into one of the four Bell states. BSAs are
fundamental for realizing photonic entanglement
swapping[zukowski-entanglement-swapping], a primary process that
creates link-level entanglement, used particularly to convert memory-
photon entanglement into memory-memory entanglement between distant
quantum memories. The efficiency and complexity of a BSA depend on
the optical implementation and the specific photonic qubit encoding
used.
*A Repeater Graph State Source (RGSS)* is a specialized source that
generates multipartite entangled photonic states, specifically
tailored for all-photonic (memory-less) quantum repeater
architectures [azuma-rgs],
[hilaire-rgs-optimizing-gen-time],[buterakos-graph-generation],
[hilaire-logical-bsm]. An RGSS typically distributes segments of the
generated repeater graph state to adjacent network nodes, where
subsequent measurements on these photonic qubits are performed to
establish long-distance entanglement without relying on quantum
memories.
*An advanced Bell state analyzer (ABSA)* represents a more
sophisticated version of a BSA, particularly required in advanced
all-photonic repeater protocols based on repeater graph
states[azuma-rgs],
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
[hilaire-rgs-optimizing-gen-time],[buterakos-graph-generation],
[hilaire-logical-bsm]. Unlike basic BSAs, an ABSA must be capable of
performing measurements on single or multiple photons in dynamically
selectable bases. The choice of measurement basis often depends on
the outcomes of prior measurements within the network and the
specific structure of the repeater graph state being utilized,
implying more complex hardware and real-time classical control logic.
*An optical switch (OSW)* is a device that can passively route
photons from input optical fibers or paths to different output paths
without performing measurements on them [koyama-24]. OSWs, which can
be based on technologies like nanomechanical systems or nanophotonic
circuits, can be integrated as components within other node types
(e.g., routers or complex end nodes) or can function as standalone
elements in the network to dynamically reconfigure optical pathways.
16.3. Repeater Nodes
*A first-generation repeater (REP1)* is a network node with two
quantum interfaces, whose main task is to extend entanglement. Its
primary operations include generating link-level Bell pairs with its
neighbors, performing entanglement swapping to connect these
segments, and managing errors through heralded entanglement
purification on physical qubits along the connection path.
*A second-generation repeater (REP2)* also focuses on entanglement
swapping to bridge distances but generally requires a larger quantum
memory capacity and higher fidelity local quantum operations than a
REP1. It utilizes quantum error correction (QEC) to manage
operational errors in conjunction with heralded link-level
entanglement generation. Instead of, or in addition to, purifying
link-level physical Bell pairs, a REP2 node operates on logical
qubits, where quantum information is encoded across multiple physical
qubits to protect it from errors. This approach inherently demands
more sophisticated hardware and advanced computational capabilities
for encoding, decoding, and error correction routines during
swapping.
*A quantum router (RTR)* is a more complex and versatile node,
possessing all capabilities of a quantum repeater and typically
featuring three or more quantum network interfaces, enabling it to
make sophisticated path selection decisions in complex topologies.
Architecturally, an RTR may consist of multiple line cards and a
quantum backplane, allowing it to run a full suite of network
operation protocols. Beyond basic repeating functions like
entanglement swapping, an RTR can govern network borders potentially
interfacing between different repeater generations or technologies,
participate in generating multipartite entangled states if the
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
network provides such a service [meignant-dgs]
[bugalho-dist-multipartite] [fischer-dgs] [fan-dgs-dist], and may act
as a Responder in connection setups by rewriting or generating new
RuleSets for different network domains.
16.4. Composite Nodes
A node may also aggregate the functions of more than one node, in a
form known as a _composite node_ or _composite logical node_. A
common form of composite node is a switching BSA. When multiple
devices of the same type are controlled by a single controller, they
may be presented either as a node with multiple devices or as a
composite node where each device is in turn represented as a node.
Presenting as a single node is preferred.
17. Links
17.1. The Link Service
A link provides Bell pairs across a single PSD. Each Bell pair is
named via an identifier. This service may be either real time or
batched.
17.2. Photonic Path Description
The optical path over which photons flow from source to detector in
the process of creating a Bell pair can be described using
terminology that names the node types in the path; the direction of
flow of photons can be inferred. This path description can be
applied to point-to-point or switched links within a single PSD.
Device type single-letter abbreviations and their corresponding node
type:
* M: memory (COMP or STOR)
* S: source (of entangled photons) (EPPS)
* I: interference (i.e., Bell state measurement) (BSA)
* D: detector (i.e. a measurement node) (MEAS)
* X: switch (OSW)
Examples of path descriptions that may commonly appear:
* DSD: detector-source-detector
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
* MIM: memory-interference-memory
* MSM: memory-source-memory
* MM: memory-memory
* DSISD: detector-source-inteference-source-detector
At any point in a path except the ends, a photon may pass through one
or more switches.
In a switched architecture, for example, photons may pass through
paths such as:
* DXSXD
* MXIXM
* MXXIXM
(Question: Does this notation also need to represent frequency
conversion?)
17.3. Point-to-point
Point-to-point links may be either fiber-based or free space. A link
encompassing the path of one or more photons may be partially fiber
and partially free space.
17.4. Switched
A system built around a pool of detectors, particularly organized as
BSAs, utilizing switched MIM links can also be characterized as a
_detector-centric architecture_.
For pseudocode for switching (routing) certain types of devices, see
Koyama et al. [koyama-24].
17.5. Multidrop or Bus
A multidrop link, or a bus, is a shared physical channel to which
more than two stations may be attached.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
18. Connections
No task involving quantum communication ever involves a single qubit
or single entangled state. The connection provides the framework for
managing the creation of an order set of entangled states to be
consumed by applications. A connection is _stateful_ at the end
nodes. Nodes involved in the creation of end-to-end entanglement for
those end nodes will be _connection aware_, meaning that they can
identify resources and messages and carry out communication tasks
necessary for a specific connection, but may not have substantial
amounts of state that is dynamically updated on a per-action basis;
any actions for nodes in this class must be idempotent or known to
occur only once. Some or all nodes may be _fully stateful_, tracking
the disposition of specific, named quantum states.
Connections may be created using either a fully-distributed protocol
[I-D.draft-van-meter-qirg-quantum-connection-setup] or a centralized
mechanism. In either case, qNodes involved in the connection receive
RuleSets that are created by a single controller to coordinate local
operations to build the end-to-end entangled states requested by an
application.
Connections are unaware of the shared use of resources and of other
connections. Multiplexing is the responsibility of a separate
subsystem, though connection setup should be done with awareness of
the availability of unavailability of resources at involved nodes.
19. Resource Management: Multiplexing and Routing
Both link usage time slots and memory can be shared among multiple
connections and therefore must be actively managed via a multiplexing
system. This task is particularly challenging in switched networks.
20. Classical Communication
A quantum network depends on classical communication; indeed, almost
all of the behavior is governed by, initiated by, or managed and
reported via classical messages and signals. These messages and
signals have several key roles, described in the following
subsections. See the Timing Regimes document
[I-D.draft-hajdusek-qirg-timing-physics] for an outline of the
physics driving these requirements.
20.1. Quantum Plane
Yes, the quantum plane includes some classical signals.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
20.2. Control Plane
* Qubit mode connections and communication
- connection-level control of switching of photons
- real-time event notification for RuleSets
* Device mode control
20.3. Data Plane
* Qubit mode connections and communication
- connection-level control of switching of photons
- real-time event notification for RuleSets
* Device mode control
20.4. Management plane: Node and link management
* reporting of parameters fixed by device physics
* reporting and setting of parameters selectable by node
configuration
* reporting and adjustment of slowly-changing parameters (such as
polarization drift)
* typical network node management tasks such as software updates
20.5. Mechanisms
* RPC for some tasks
- especially device-mode control
- qRPC wrapper for classical RPC mechanisms
* message broker or event broker for other tasks
- especially qubit-mode RuleSet notifications
21. Naming and Addressing
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
21.1. State naming and management in RuleSets
(Incorporates naming material from Naphan's thesis. Probably needs
updating to account for testbed realities.)
Managing and agreeing upon the specific qubits for joint operations
like entanglement purification or swapping among collaborating nodes
are critical responsibilities handled by RuleSets. While it is
possible to draw inspiration from the IP architecture by employing
network-wide unique naming for qubits, RuleSets have local execution
contexts, making global naming for individual qubits unnecessary.
Instead, RuleSets use local logical names for qubits. At the lowest
level, physical qubits within a QNIC can be addressed by the local
node using a tuple like <QNICAddress,QubitIndex>. However, this
level of detail is not, and should not be, visible to the RuleSet
logic.
Within a RuleSet instance on a given node, the RuleSet mechanism
identifies a quantum resource primarily by its *tag* --- a label that
categorizes the resource into a specific pool corresponding to its
current role or stage in the protocol. To ensure an unambiguous and
absolute ordering of multiple resources that may share the same tag
(e.g., several Bell pairs awaiting purification), each resource, upon
being allocated to a tag, is automatically assigned a \emph{sequence
number} by the local RuleSet engine. The combination <tag,seq no.>
thus serves as a distinct and locally unique key within that RuleSet
instance for referencing a resource and associating it with relevant
metadata, such as its tracked fidelity. Actions specified within
Rules typically reference these resources based on their tag and
their relative order within that tag, for instance, by operating on
the resource with the smallest sequence number (i.e., the oldest
available in that pool). This structured internal naming is vital
for deterministic local operations and for preventing local
operational mismatches that could lead to problems like the
leapfrogging issue if not handled carefully at a higher protocol
design level.
The RuleSet execution mechanism itself, therefore, only requires and
manages this local <tag,seq no.> system for resource identification
within a single node's RuleSet instance; it does not impose any
inherent restrictions or requirements on how shared entangled states
are identified between nodes. It is recommended that a strategy be
used wherein the RuleSet creator (e.g., the Responder during
connection setup) devises RuleSets such that the <tag,seq no.> is
kept consistent across the RuleSets of all nodes involved in a
particular joint operation on that resource. The responsibility thus
lies with the RuleSet author to ensure that RuleSets are designed---
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
potentially using this consistent naming strategy---to correctly
manage shared resources and achieve the desired end-to-end protocol
behavior. This minimal local naming scheme provided by the RuleSet
engine, combined with judicious design of the RuleSets themselves, is
sufficient for implementing a wide range of complex quantum network
protocols while allowing creativity with minimal restrictions on
RuleSet creator parts.
22. Example Networks
While a full taxonomy of networks is neither desirable nor possible
here, we present a few network examples using point-to-point links or
switched architectures. In this section, the topology is briefly
described, followed by analysis of the path characteristics of the
shortest path and network diameter.
22.1. Fully Connected
A number of the early quantum multicomputer proposals assumed a
single, large optical switch.
Shortest paths:
22.2. Q-Fly Multicomputer
An _indirect_ interconnect. A multi-group, BSA-centric architecture.
All nodes are part of the same PSD. The Q-Fly architecture is
described in Sakuma et al. [sakuma-q-fly].
For DPFD topologies:
* Shortest paths
- intra-group: MIXM
- inter-group (network diameter): MXXIM
* Longer paths:
- non-shortest path: MXXIXM or longer
For DPHD topologies:
* Shortest paths
- intra-group: MXIXM
- inter-group (network diameter): MXXIXM
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
* Longer paths:
- non-shortest path: MXXXIXM or longer
For SPHD topologies:
* Shortest paths
- intra-group: MXIXM
- inter-group (network diameter): MXXIXM
* Longer paths:
- non-shortest path: MXXXIXM or longer
22.3. Optically Switched Fat Tree
An _indirect_ interconnect. Several parameters are needed to
describe the full topology of a fat tree, which can also be called a
_k_-ary _n_-tree:
* _k_ is the switch radix
* _n_ is the tree depth
This simplest description assumes homogeneous hardware, where all
switches have the same number of ports and all links are the same
bandwidth. Leiserson's original fat tree proposed single links of
increasing bandwidth at higher levels of the tree, giving the network
its name; this approach provides no redundancy or path diversity, and
achieving higher transfer rates is impractical in some technologies,
including quantum. Consequently, most fat tree deployments use
multiple links to several switches at higher levels of the tree, in a
configuration that is also know as a _folded Clos_ network.
22.4. Repeater Fat Tree
The repeater fat tree is described in [choi-fat-tree].
22.5. 2-D Grid Multicomputer
A _direct_ interconnect. A 2-D grid of nodes, where nodes with
memory and certain computational capabilities (canonically COMP
nodes) have up to four interfaces connecting to neighboring nodes.
Each node must act as a memory buffer and repeater to enable
communication between non-neighboring nodes.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
22.6. Ring
A _direct_ interconnect. All nodes in a ring have exactly two
neighbors. Each node must act as a memory buffer and repeater to
enable communication between non-neighboring nodes.
A ring is described in (something from Simon's group).
22.7. QLAN
A quantum local area network will have:
* irregular topology, possibly of heterogeneous link types
* distributed multiplexing
* distributed routing
23. APIs for Network Service ("Quantum Sockets")
The API used by classical software to interface with the quantum
depends on which class of timing dependency pattern (B, C, or T) is
to be supported.
24. Security Considerations
Quantum multicomputer systems are assumed to be constructed as
isolated, centrally controlled systems with no need for
confidentiality, integrity, and availability (the "CIA triad")
assurance via cryptographic methods.
Security considerations for other network types are an open topic of
study and as such are not yet ready for specification and
standardization.
25. References
25.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
25.2. Informative References
[aboy-governance]
Aboy, M., Gasser, U., Cohen, I., and M. Kop, "Quantum
technology governance: A standards-first approach",
American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS), Science vol. 389, no. 6760, pp. 575-578,
DOI 10.1126/science.adw0018, August 2025,
<https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adw0018>.
[ambainis-multiparty-coin]
Ambainis, A., Buhrman, H., Dodis, Y., and H. Rohrig,
"Multiparty quantum coin flipping", IEEE, Proceedings.
19th IEEE Annual Conference on Computational Complexity,
2004. pp. 250-259, DOI 10.1109/ccc.2004.1313848, November
2004, <https://doi.org/10.1109/ccc.2004.1313848>.
[awschalom-roadmap]
, Awschalom, D., Bernien, H., Brown, R., Clerk, A.,
Chitambar, E., Dibos, A., Dionne, J., Eriksson, M.,
Fefferman, B., Fuchs, G., Gambetta, J., Goldschmidt, E.,
Guha, S., Heremans, F., Irwin, K., Jayich, A., Jiang, L.,
Karsch, J., Kasevich, M., Kolkowitz, S., Kwiat, P., Ladd,
T., Lowell, J., Maslov, D., Mason, N., Matsuura, A.,
McDermott, R., van Meter, R., Miller, A., Orcutt, J.,
Saffman, M., Schleier-Smith, M., Singh, M., Smith, P.,
Suchara, M., Toudeh-Fallah, F., Turlington, M., Woods, B.,
and T. Zhong, "A Roadmap for Quantum Interconnects",
Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI),
DOI 10.2172/1900586, July 2022,
<https://doi.org/10.2172/1900586>.
[azuma-rgs]
Azuma, K., Tamaki, K., and H. Lo, "All-photonic quantum
repeaters", Springer Science and Business Media LLC,
Nature Communications vol. 6, no. 1,
DOI 10.1038/ncomms7787, April 2015,
<https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7787>.
[bennett-mixed]
Bennett, C., DiVincenzo, D., Smolin, J., and W. Wootters,
"Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction",
American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review A vol.
54, no. 5, pp. 3824-3851, DOI 10.1103/physreva.54.3824,
November 1996, <https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.54.3824>.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
[broadbent-bfk-protocol]
Broadbent, A., Fitzsimons, J., and E. Kashefi, "Universal
Blind Quantum Computation", IEEE, 2009 50th Annual IEEE
Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science pp. 517-526,
DOI 10.1109/focs.2009.36, October 2009,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/focs.2009.36>.
[bugalho-dist-multipartite]
Bugalho, L., Coutinho, B., Monteiro, F., and Y. Omar,
"Distributing Multipartite Entanglement over Noisy Quantum
Networks", Verein zur Forderung des Open Access
Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften, Quantum vol. 7,
pp. 920, DOI 10.22331/q-2023-02-09-920, February 2023,
<https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-02-09-920>.
[buterakos-graph-generation]
Buterakos, D., Barnes, E., and S. Economou, "Deterministic
Generation of All-Photonic Quantum Repeaters from Solid-
State Emitters", American Physical Society (APS), Physical
Review X vol. 7, no. 4, DOI 10.1103/physrevx.7.041023,
October 2017, <https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevx.7.041023>.
[choi-fat-tree]
Choi, H., Davis, M., Iñesta, Á., and D. Englund, "Scalable
Quantum Networks: Congestion-Free Hierarchical
Entanglement Routing with Error Correction", arXiv,
DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.2306.09216, 2023,
<https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2306.09216>.
[christandl-anon]
Christandl, M. and S. Wehner, "Quantum Anonymous
Transmissions", Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Lecture Notes
in Computer Science pp. 217-235, DOI 10.1007/11593447_12,
ISBN ["9783540306849", "9783540322672"], 2005,
<https://doi.org/10.1007/11593447_12>.
[dally-towles]
Dally, W. J. and B. P. Towles, "Principles and Practices
of Interconnection Networks", ISBN 978-0-08-049780-8,
2004.
[degen-sensing]
Degen, C., Reinhard, F., and P. Cappellaro, "Quantum
sensing", American Physical Society (APS), Reviews of
Modern Physics vol. 89, no. 3,
DOI 10.1103/revmodphys.89.035002, July 2017,
<https://doi.org/10.1103/revmodphys.89.035002>.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
[divincenzo-criteria]
DiVincenzo, D. and , "The Physical Implementation of
Quantum Computation", arXiv, arXiv, DOI
10.48550/ARXIV.QUANT-PH/0002077, 2000,
<https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.QUANT-PH/0002077>.
[drost] Drost, R., Moore, T., and M. Brodsky, "Switching Networks
for Pairwise-Entanglement Distribution", Optica Publishing
Group, Journal of Optical Communications and
Networking vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 331,
DOI 10.1364/jocn.8.000331, April 2016,
<https://doi.org/10.1364/jocn.8.000331>.
[dulek-homomorphic]
Dulek, Y., Schaffner, C., and F. Speelman, "", Theory of
Computing Exchange, Theory of Computing vol. 14, no. 1,
pp. 1-45, DOI 10.4086/toc.2018.v014a007, 2018,
<https://doi.org/10.4086/toc.2018.v014a007>.
[dur-w-state]
Dür, W., Vidal, G., and J. Cirac, "Three qubits can be
entangled in two inequivalent ways", American Physical
Society (APS), Physical Review A vol. 62, no. 6,
DOI 10.1103/physreva.62.062314, November 2000,
<https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.62.062314>.
[fan-dgs-dist]
Fan, X., Zhan, C., Gupta, H., and C. Ramakrishnan,
"Optimized Distribution of Entanglement Graph States in
Quantum Networks", Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE), IEEE Transactions on Quantum
Engineering vol. 6, pp. 1-17,
DOI 10.1109/tqe.2025.3552006, 2025,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/tqe.2025.3552006>.
[fischer-dgs]
Fischer, A. and D. Towsley, "Distributing Graph States
Across Quantum Networks", IEEE, 2021 IEEE International
Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) pp.
324-333, DOI 10.1109/qce52317.2021.00049, October 2021,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/qce52317.2021.00049>.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
[fittipaldi-sat]
Fittipaldi, P., Teramoto, K., Benchasattabuse, N.,
Hajdušek, M., Van Meter, R., and F. Grosshans,
"Entanglement Swapping in Orbit: a Satellite Quantum Link
Case Study", IEEE, 2024 IEEE International Conference on
Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) pp. 1924-1930,
DOI 10.1109/qce60285.2024.00222, September 2024,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/qce60285.2024.00222>.
[fitzsimons-blind]
Fitzsimons, J., "Private quantum computation: an
introduction to blind quantum computing and related
protocols", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, npj
Quantum Information vol. 3, no. 1,
DOI 10.1038/s41534-017-0025-3, June 2017,
<https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-017-0025-3>.
[ge-linear]
Ge, W., Jacobs, K., Eldredge, Z., Gorshkov, A., and M.
Foss-Feig, "Distributed Quantum Metrology with Linear
Networks and Separable Inputs", American Physical Society
(APS), Physical Review Letters vol. 121, no. 4,
DOI 10.1103/physrevlett.121.043604, July 2018,
<https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.121.043604>.
[ghz] Greenberger, D., Horne, M., and A. Zeilinger, "Going
Beyond Bell's Theorem", arXiv, arXiv,
DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.0712.0921, 2007,
<https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.0712.0921>.
[giovannetti-metro]
Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S., and L. Maccone, "Advances in
quantum metrology", Springer Science and Business Media
LLC, Nature Photonics vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 222-229,
DOI 10.1038/nphoton.2011.35, March 2011,
<https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2011.35>.
[gottesman-telescope]
Gottesman, D., Jennewein, T., and S. Croke, "Longer-
Baseline Telescopes Using Quantum Repeaters", American
Physical Society (APS), Physical Review Letters vol. 109,
no. 7, DOI 10.1103/physrevlett.109.070503, August 2012,
<https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.109.070503>.
[hajdusek-qcomm]
Hajdušek, M. and R. Van Meter, "Quantum Communications",
arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.2311.02367, 2023,
<https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2311.02367>.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
[haldar-sat-dist]
Haldar, S., Agullo, I., Brady, A., Lamas-Linares, A.,
Proctor, W., and J. Troupe, "Towards global time
distribution via satellite-based sources of entangled
photons", American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review
A vol. 107, no. 2, DOI 10.1103/physreva.107.022615,
February 2023,
<https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.107.022615>.
[hein-graph-entanglement]
, , , , , and , "Entanglement in graph states and its
applications", IOS Press, Proceedings of the International
School of Physics “Enrico Fermi” vol. 162, pp. 115–218,
DOI 10.3254/978-1-61499-018-5-115, 2006,
<https://doi.org/10.3254/978-1-61499-018-5-115>.
[hein-multiparty]
Hein, M., Eisert, J., and H. Briegel, "Multiparty
entanglement in graph states", American Physical Society
(APS), Physical Review A vol. 69, no. 6,
DOI 10.1103/physreva.69.062311, June 2004,
<https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.69.062311>.
[hilaire-logical-bsm]
Hilaire, P., Barnes, E., Economou, S., and F. Grosshans,
"Error-correcting entanglement swapping using a practical
logical photon encoding", American Physical Society (APS),
Physical Review A vol. 104, no. 5,
DOI 10.1103/physreva.104.052623, November 2021,
<https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.104.052623>.
[hilaire-rgs-optimizing-gen-time]
Hilaire, P., Barnes, E., and S. Economou, "Resource
requirements for efficient quantum communication using
all-photonic graph states generated from a few matter
qubits", Verein zur Forderung des Open Access Publizierens
in den Quantenwissenschaften, Quantum vol. 5, pp. 397,
DOI 10.22331/q-2021-02-15-397, February 2021,
<https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-02-15-397>.
[horsman-lattice-surgery]
Horsman, D., Fowler, A., Devitt, S., and R. Meter,
"Surface code quantum computing by lattice surgery", IOP
Publishing, New Journal of Physics vol. 14, no. 12, pp.
123011, DOI 10.1088/1367-2630/14/12/123011, December 2012,
<https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/14/12/123011>.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
[huang-imaging-stars]
Huang, Z., Brennen, G., and Y. Ouyang, "Imaging Stars with
Quantum Error Correction", American Physical Society
(APS), Physical Review Letters vol. 129, no. 21,
DOI 10.1103/physrevlett.129.210502, November 2022,
<https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.129.210502>.
[I-D.draft-hajdusek-qirg-timing-physics]
Hajdusek, M. and R. Van Meter, "Timing Regimes in Quantum
Networks and their Physical Underpinnings", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-hajdusek-qirg-timing-
physics-00, 2 March 2026,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hajdusek-
qirg-timing-physics-00>.
[I-D.draft-van-meter-qirg-quantum-connection-setup]
Van Meter, R. and T. Matsuo, "Connection Setup in a
Quantum Network", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
van-meter-qirg-quantum-connection-setup-01, 11 September
2019, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-van-
meter-qirg-quantum-connection-setup-01>.
[ilo-okeke-clock]
Ilo-Okeke, E., Tessler, L., Dowling, J., and T. Byrnes,
"Remote quantum clock synchronization without synchronized
clocks", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, npj
Quantum Information vol. 4, no. 1,
DOI 10.1038/s41534-018-0090-2, August 2018,
<https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-018-0090-2>.
[khatri-spooky]
Khatri, S., Brady, A., Desporte, R., Bart, M., and J.
Dowling, "Spooky action at a global distance: analysis of
space-based entanglement distribution for the quantum
internet", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, npj
Quantum Information vol. 7, no. 1,
DOI 10.1038/s41534-020-00327-5, January 2021,
<https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-020-00327-5>.
[kim-ft-million]
Kim, J., Min, D., Cho, J., Jeong, H., Byun, I., Choi, J.,
Hong, J., and J. Kim, "A Fault-Tolerant Million Qubit-
Scale Distributed Quantum Computer", ACM, Proceedings of
the 29th ACM International Conference on Architectural
Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems,
Volume 2 pp. 1-19, DOI 10.1145/3620665.3640388, April
2024, <https://doi.org/10.1145/3620665.3640388>.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
[koyama-24]
Koyama, M., Yun, C., Taherkhani, A., Benchasattabuse, N.,
Sane, B., Hajdušek, M., Nagayama, S., and R. Meter,
"Optimal Switching Networks for Paired-Egress Bell State
Analyzer Pools", IEEE, 2024 IEEE International Conference
on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) pp. 1897-1907,
DOI 10.1109/qce60285.2024.00219, September 2024,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/qce60285.2024.00219>.
[leone-remote]
Leone, H., Le, T., Srikara, S., and S. Devitt, "Resource
overheads and attainable rates for trapped-ion lattice
surgery", arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.2406.18764, 2024,
<https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2406.18764>.
[li-cosmic]
Li, X., Wang, J., Jiang, Y., Xue, G., Cai, X., Zhou, J.,
Gong, M., Liu, Z., Zheng, S., Ma, D., Chen, M., Sun, W.,
Yang, S., Yan, F., Jin, Y., Zhao, S., Ding, X., and H. Yu,
"Cosmic-ray-induced correlated errors in superconducting
qubit array", Springer Science and Business Media LLC,
Nature Communications vol. 16, no. 1,
DOI 10.1038/s41467-025-59778-z, May 2025,
<https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-59778-z>.
[litinski-gosc]
Litinski, D., "A Game of Surface Codes: Large-Scale
Quantum Computing with Lattice Surgery", Verein zur
Forderung des Open Access Publizierens in den
Quantenwissenschaften, Quantum vol. 3, pp. 128,
DOI 10.22331/q-2019-03-05-128, March 2019,
<https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2019-03-05-128>.
[mahadev-homomorphic]
Mahadev, U., "Classical Homomorphic Encryption for Quantum
Circuits", Society for Industrial & Applied Mathematics
(SIAM), SIAM Journal on Computing vol. 52, no. 6, pp.
FOCS18-189-FOCS18-215, DOI 10.1137/18m1231055, December
2020, <https://doi.org/10.1137/18m1231055>.
[martinis-correlated]
Martinis, J., "Saving superconducting quantum processors
from decay and correlated errors generated by gamma and
cosmic rays", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, npj
Quantum Information vol. 7, no. 1,
DOI 10.1038/s41534-021-00431-0, June 2021,
<https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-021-00431-0>.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
[mayers-unconditional]
Mayers, D., "Unconditional security in Quantum
Cryptography", arXiv, arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.QUANT-
PH/9802025, 1998,
<https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.QUANT-PH/9802025>.
[meignant-dgs]
Meignant, C., Markham, D., and F. Grosshans, "Distributing
graph states over arbitrary quantum networks", American
Physical Society (APS), Physical Review A vol. 100, no. 5,
DOI 10.1103/physreva.100.052333, November 2019,
<https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.100.052333>.
[mori-psds]
Mori, Y., Sasaki, T., Ikuta, R., Teramoto, K., Ohno, H.,
Hajdušek, M., Van Meter, R., and S. Nagayama, "Scalable
Timing Coordination of Bell State Analyzers in Quantum
Networks", IEEE, 2024 IEEE International Conference on
Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) pp. 1890-1896,
DOI 10.1109/qce60285.2024.00218, September 2024,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/qce60285.2024.00218>.
[morimae-blind]
Morimae, T. and K. Fujii, "Blind quantum computation
protocol in which Alice only makes measurements", American
Physical Society (APS), Physical Review A vol. 87, no. 5,
DOI 10.1103/physreva.87.050301, May 2013,
<https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.87.050301>.
[muralidharan-generations]
Muralidharan, S., Li, L., Kim, J., Lütkenhaus, N., Lukin,
M., and L. Jiang, "Optimal architectures for long distance
quantum communication", Springer Science and Business
Media LLC, Scientific Reports vol. 6, no. 1,
DOI 10.1038/srep20463, February 2016,
<https://doi.org/10.1038/srep20463>.
[nist-singles]
Bienfang, J., Gerrits, T., Kuo, P., Migdall, A., Polyakov,
S., and O. Slattery, "Single-photon Sources and Detectors
Dictionary", National Institute of Standards and
Technology, DOI 10.6028/nist.ir.8486r1, August 2025,
<https://doi.org/10.6028/nist.ir.8486r1>.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
[proctor-multiparm]
Proctor, T., Knott, P., and J. Dunningham, "Multiparameter
Estimation in Networked Quantum Sensors", American
Physical Society (APS), Physical Review Letters vol. 120,
no. 8, DOI 10.1103/physrevlett.120.080501, February 2018,
<https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.120.080501>.
[proctor-quantum-sensing]
Proctor, T., Knott, P., and J. Dunningham, "Networked
quantum sensing", arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.1702.04271,
2017, <https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1702.04271>.
[ramette-remote]
Ramette, J., Sinclair, J., Breuckmann, N., and V. Vuletić,
"Fault-tolerant connection of error-corrected qubits with
noisy links", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, npj
Quantum Information vol. 10, no. 1,
DOI 10.1038/s41534-024-00855-4, June 2024,
<https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-024-00855-4>.
[rdv-thesis]
Van Meter III, R. D., "Architecture of a Quantum
Multicomputer Optimized for Shor's Factoring Algorithm",
Ph.D. Dissertation, Keio University, 2006,
<https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0607065>.
[res-mgmt-het]
Benchasattabuse, N., "Resource Management in Heterogeneous
Quantum Repeater Networks", Ph.D. Dissertation, Keio
University, 2025,
<https://aqua.sfc.wide.ad.jp/publications/whit3z-thesis-
local-compiled.pdf>.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1122>.
[RFC1123] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1123, October 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1123>.
[RFC9340] Kozlowski, W., Wehner, S., Van Meter, R., Rijsman, B.,
Cacciapuoti, A. S., Caleffi, M., and S. Nagayama,
"Architectural Principles for a Quantum Internet",
RFC 9340, DOI 10.17487/RFC9340, March 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9340>.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
[RFC9583] Wang, C., Rahman, A., Li, R., Aelmans, M., and K.
Chakraborty, "Application Scenarios for the Quantum
Internet", RFC 9583, DOI 10.17487/RFC9583, June 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9583>.
[sakuma-q-fly]
Sakuma, D., Tsuno, T., Shimizu, H., Kurosawa, Y.,
Friedrich, M., Teramoto, K., Taherkhani, A., Todd, A.,
Ueno, Y., Hajdušek, M., Ikuta, R., Van Meter, R., Sasaki,
T., and S. Nagayama, "Q-Fly: An Optical Interconnect for
Modular Quantum Computers", arXiv,
DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.2412.09299, 2024,
<https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2412.09299>.
[sane-jobs]
Sane, B., Hajdušek, M., and R. Van Meter, "Optimizing
Resource Allocation in a Distributed Quantum Computing
Cloud: A Game-Theoretic Approach", arXiv,
DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.2504.18298, 2025,
<https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2504.18298>.
[sane-phonons]
Sane, B., Meter, R., and M. Hajdusek, "Fight or Flight:
Cosmic Ray-Induced Phonons and the Quantum Surface
Code<sup>*</sup>", IEEE, 2023 IEEE International
Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) pp.
1378-1388, DOI 10.1109/qce57702.2023.00156, September
2023, <https://doi.org/10.1109/qce57702.2023.00156>.
[schoute-shortcuts]
Schoute, E., Mancinska, L., Islam, T., Kerenidis, I., and
S. Wehner, "Shortcuts to quantum network routing", arXiv,
DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.1610.05238, 2016,
<https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1610.05238>.
[shapourian-qdc-infra]
Shapourian, H., Kaur, E., Sewell, T., Zhao, J., Kilzer,
M., Kompella, R., and R. Nejabati, "Quantum Data Center
Infrastructures: A Scalable Architectural Design
Perspective", arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.2501.05598, 2025,
<https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2501.05598>.
[sinclair-ft-interconnect]
Sinclair, J., Ramette, J., Grinkemeyer, B., Bluvstein, D.,
Lukin, M., and V. Vuletić, "Fault-tolerant optical
interconnects for neutral-atom arrays", arXiv,
DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.2408.08955, 2024,
<https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2408.08955>.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
[sutcliffe-dist-qec]
Sutcliffe, E., Jonnadula, B., Le Gall, C., Moylett, A.,
and C. Westoby, "Distributed Quantum Error Correction
Based on Hyperbolic Floquet Codes", IEEE, 2025 IEEE
International Conference on Quantum Computing and
Engineering (QCE) pp. 649-657,
DOI 10.1109/qce65121.2025.00076, August 2025,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/qce65121.2025.00076>.
[taherkhani-byz]
Taherkhani, M., Navi, K., and R. Meter, "Resource-aware
system architecture model for implementation of quantum
aided Byzantine agreement on quantum repeater networks",
IOP Publishing, Quantum Science and Technology vol. 3, no.
1, pp. 014011, DOI 10.1088/2058-9565/aa9bb1, December
2017, <https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/aa9bb1>.
[van-meter-opt-timing]
Van Meter, R., Satoh, T., Nagayama, S., Matsuo, T., and S.
Suzuki, "Optimizing Timing of High-Success-Probability
Quantum Repeaters", arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.1701.04586,
2017, <https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1701.04586>.
[van-meter-q-net-book]
Van Meter, R., "Quantum Networking", Wiley,
DOI 10.1002/9781118648919, ISBN ["9781848215375",
"9781118648919"], April 2014,
<https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118648919>.
[van-meter-qi-arch]
Van Meter, R., Satoh, R., Benchasattabuse, N., Teramoto,
K., Matsuo, T., Hajdusek, M., Satoh, T., Nagayama, S., and
S. Suzuki, "A Quantum Internet Architecture", IEEE, 2022
IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and
Engineering (QCE) pp. 341-352,
DOI 10.1109/qce53715.2022.00055, September 2022,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/qce53715.2022.00055>.
[vepsaelaeinen-ionizing]
Vepsäläinen, A., Karamlou, A., Orrell, J., Dogra, A.,
Loer, B., Vasconcelos, F., Kim, D., Melville, A.,
Niedzielski, B., Yoder, J., Gustavsson, S., Formaggio, J.,
VanDevender, B., and W. Oliver, "Impact of ionizing
radiation on superconducting qubit coherence", Springer
Science and Business Media LLC, Nature vol. 584, no. 7822,
pp. 551-556, DOI 10.1038/s41586-020-2619-8, August 2020,
<https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2619-8>.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
[wu-mitigating]
Wu, X., Joshi, Y., Yan, H., Andersson, G., Anferov, A.,
Conner, C., Karimi, B., King, A., Li, S., Malc, H.,
Miller, J., Mishra, H., Qiao, H., Ryu, M., Xing, S., Shi,
J., and A. Cleland, "Mitigating cosmic-ray-like correlated
events with a modular quantum processor", American
Physical Society (APS), Physical Review Applied vol. 24,
no. 4, DOI 10.1103/4ctq-r6w6, October 2025,
<https://doi.org/10.1103/4ctq-r6w6>.
[xu-dist-qec]
Xu, Q., Seif, A., Yan, H., Mannucci, N., Sane, B., Van
Meter, R., Cleland, A., and L. Jiang, "Distributed Quantum
Error Correction for Chip-Level Catastrophic Errors",
American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review
Letters vol. 129, no. 24,
DOI 10.1103/physrevlett.129.240502, December 2022,
<https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.129.240502>.
[yin-1200km]
Yin, J., Cao, Y., Li, Y., Liao, S., Zhang, L., Ren, J.,
Cai, W., Liu, W., Li, B., Dai, H., Li, G., Lu, Q., Gong,
Y., Xu, Y., Li, S., Li, F., Yin, Y., Jiang, Z., Li, M.,
Jia, J., Ren, G., He, D., Zhou, Y., Zhang, X., Wang, N.,
Chang, X., Zhu, Z., Liu, N., Chen, Y., Lu, C., Shu, R.,
Peng, C., Wang, J., and J. Pan, "Satellite-based
entanglement distribution over 1200 kilometers", American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS),
Science vol. 356, no. 6343, pp. 1140-1144,
DOI 10.1126/science.aan3211, June 2017,
<https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan3211>.
[yoder-tour-de-gross]
Yoder, T., Schoute, E., Rall, P., Pritchett, E., Gambetta,
J., Cross, A., Carroll, M., and M. Beverland, "Tour de
gross: A modular quantum computer based on bivariate
bicycle codes", arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.2506.03094,
2025, <https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2506.03094>.
[zukowski-entanglement-swapping]
Kaszlikowski, D., Kwek, L., Chen, J., Żukowski, M., and C.
Oh, "Clauser-Horne inequality for three-state systems",
American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review A vol.
65, no. 3, DOI 10.1103/physreva.65.032118, February 2002,
<https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.65.032118>.
Contributors
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
Michal Hajdusek
Keio University
5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa
252-0882
Japan
Michal was involved in document development and technical discussions
from the beginning.
Andrew Todd
Keio University
5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa
252-0882
Japan
Andrew leads the software team implementing much of the network, and
provides feedback on system structure.
Monet Tokuyama Friedrich
Keio University
5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa
252-0882
Japan
Contributed presentations and clarity; reviewed this document;
authoring related specifications.
Shota Nagayama
Keio University
5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa
252-0882
Japan
Contributed presentations and clarity; reviewed this document and
related documents; technical and managerial leadership.
Akihito Soeda
National Institute for Informatics
2-1-2 Hitotsubashi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
101-8430
Japan
Technical and managerial discussions.
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft QNA March 2026
Authors' Addresses
Rodney Van Meter
Keio University
5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa
252-0882
Japan
Email: rdv@sfc.wide.ad.jp
Naphan Benchasattabuse
Keio University
5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa
252-0882
Japan
Email: whit3z@sfc.wide.ad.jp
Amin Taherkhani
Keio University
5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa
252-0882
Japan
Email: amin@sfc.wide.ad.jp
Van Meter, et al. Expires 17 September 2026 [Page 53]