QIRG R. Van Meter Internet-Draft N. Benchasattabuse Intended status: Informational A. Taherkhani Expires: 5 May 2027 Keio University 1 November 2026 A Quantum Network Architecture draft-van-meter-qirg-quantum-network-architecture-02 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 5 May 2027 [Page 1] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 This Internet-Draft will expire on 5 May 2027. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Goals and Non-Goals of this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Non-Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Relationship to Documents by QIRG and Other Organizations . . 6 5. Prerequisite Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Applications of Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.1. Types of Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.2. Entangled States Consumption Patterns . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.2.1. The Entanglement Information Timeline . . . . . . . . 12 7.2.2. Classification of Consumption Patterns . . . . . . . 12 7.2.3. Class Selection and Resource Implications . . . . . . 13 7.2.4. Unentangled State Tolerant (B Class) Applications . . 14 7.2.5. Reactive Correction (C Class) Applications . . . . . 14 7.2.6. Deterministic (T Class) Applications . . . . . . . . 15 8. Architectural Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.1. Quantum Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.2. Quantum Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.3. Quantum Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.4. Photonic Synchronization Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.5. Direct and Indirect Multicomputer Architectures . . . . . 16 8.6. Detector-centric Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.7. Source-centric Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.8. Qubit-Level v. Device-Level Access . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9. Quantum Optical Building Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.1. Qubits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.2. Photons, Wave Packets and Optical Modes . . . . . . . . . 18 9.3. Photonic Qubits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.4. Memories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.5. Photon Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9.5.1. Unentangled Single Photons . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 2] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 9.5.2. Entangled Photon Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9.5.3. Memory-Emitted Photons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9.6. Detectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 10. A Sketch of the System Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10.1. Multicomputer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10.2. Data Center Network (QDCN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10.3. Local-Area Network (QLAN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10.4. Wide-Area Network (QWAN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 11. Requirements and Goals for the Architecture . . . . . . . . . 25 11.1. Normative Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11.2. General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11.2.1. Functional Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11.2.2. Interface Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 11.2.3. Physical Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 11.2.4. Environmental Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 11.3. Network Management Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 11.3.1. Configuration Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 11.3.2. Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 11.3.3. Online Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 12. Architecture Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 12.1. Deterministic Classical Control of Quantum States . . . 28 12.2. Nodes, Links and Operational Views . . . . . . . . . . . 29 12.3. Communication Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 12.3.1. Bell Pairs as the Core Network Service . . . . . . . 30 12.3.2. Timing as a Critical Auxiliary Service . . . . . . . 30 12.4. Stateful Connections Along a Pre-established Path . . . 30 12.5. Four-Layer Protocol Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 12.6. RuleSet-based Network Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 12.7. Five Planes, or Views, of the Network . . . . . . . . . 31 13. Architectural Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 13.1. Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 13.2. Quantum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 13.3. Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 13.4. Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 13.5. Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 14. Protocol Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 14.1. Physical Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 14.2. Link Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 14.3. Network Layer: RuleSets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 14.4. Application Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 15. Nodes and Node Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 15.1. End Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 15.2. Support Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 15.3. Repeater Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 15.4. Composite Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 16. Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 16.1. The Link Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 16.2. Link/Network Layer Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 3] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 16.3. Link Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 16.3.1. Photonic Path Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 16.3.2. Point-to-point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 16.3.3. Switched . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 16.3.4. Multidrop or Bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 16.4. Link Design Choices and Operational Settings . . . . . . 43 16.5. Installing and Bootstrapping a Link . . . . . . . . . . 44 16.6. Spontaneous Changes to Link Conditions . . . . . . . . . 45 16.7. Link and Channel Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 17. Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 18. Application Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 18.1. APIs for Network Service ("Quantum Sockets") . . . . . . 46 19. Resource Management: Multiplexing and Routing . . . . . . . . 46 20. Classical Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 20.1. Device Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 20.2. Quantum Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 20.3. Data Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 20.4. Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 20.5. Management plane: Node and link management . . . . . . . 48 20.6. Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 21. Naming and Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 21.1. State naming and management in RuleSets . . . . . . . . 48 22. Example Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 22.1. Fully Connected Point-to-Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 22.2. Single Optical Switch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 22.3. Q-Fly Multicomputer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 22.4. Optically Switched Fat Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 22.5. Repeater Fat Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 22.6. 2-D Grid Multicomputer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 22.7. Ring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 22.8. QLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 23. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 24. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 24.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 24.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 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 Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 4] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 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 [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. 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 * Specification of physical links (including photonic wave packets) * Detailed definition of application-layer protocols and software interfaces such as sockets * Internetworking Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 5] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 4. Relationship to Documents by QIRG and 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 - 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) (part of IRTF) Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 6] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 - [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 - No-cloning theorem - Clifford group - Basics of quantum error correction (QEC) * Classical Internet-family networking * Quantum networking - Teleportation [bennett-teleportation] - Purification [dur-purification] - Entanglement swapping [zukowski-entanglement-swapping] - Quantum key distribution [BB84], [E91], [BBM92] Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 7] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 - "Generations" of quantum repeaters [muralidharan-generations], [azuma-rmp] - (Repeater graph states may be helpful, but are not used in the current architecture [azuma-rgs], [hilaire-rgs-optimizing-gen-time],[buterakos-graph-generation], [hilaire-logical-bsm]) Because terms such as _fidelity_ have varying definitions, they will be defined in this set of documents [I-D.draft-hajdusek-qirg-timing-physics]. 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 | +-----------------+------------------------------------------------+ | CRQC | cryptographically relevant quantum computer | +-----------------+------------------------------------------------+ | 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) | Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 8] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 +-----------------+------------------------------------------------+ | FTQC | fault-tolerant quantum computer | +-----------------+------------------------------------------------+ | 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. | +-----------------+------------------------------------------------+ | 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 | Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 9] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 +-----------------+------------------------------------------------+ | 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. [van-meter-dist-arith] | +-----------------+------------------------------------------------+ | telegate | application execution via remote gates (as | | | defined by Eisert et al. | | | [eisert-remote-gate]). May be done remotely, | | | mediated by Bell pairs. [van-meter-dist-arith] | +-----------------+------------------------------------------------+ | time bin | a method of qubit encoding using photons; | | | compare to window and time slot | +-----------------+------------------------------------------------+ | time slot | a fully specified time and place where a | | | photon may be detected; compare to window and | | | time bin | +-----------------+------------------------------------------------+ | time window | the time interval where a detector is enabled; | | | compare to time bin and time slot | Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 10] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 +-----------------+------------------------------------------------+ 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. The inherently distributed applications can be further categorized into cryptographic functions, distributed computation, and distributed sensing. 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 The text in this section is 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 5 May 2027 [Page 11] Internet-Draft QNA November 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. Without this information, an entangled state will be _fully mixed_, with a fidelity of 0.25 for a two-qubit state. 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 5 May 2027 [Page 12] Internet-Draft QNA November 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 5 May 2027 [Page 13] Internet-Draft QNA November 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 entanglement 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 5 May 2027 [Page 14] Internet-Draft QNA November 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. For the purposes of this architecture, a quantum device (often shortened to just "device" in this specification) is under software control; i.e. passive elements such as 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 [pnpq]. Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 15] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 8.2. Quantum Nodes A quantum node comprises one or more quantum devices, and serves as a single locus of control for network protocols. The classes of nodes are described in detail in Section 15. A _logical node_ or _composite node_ provides a single communication and control point for the services of a particular node type, but may comprise a set of physical devices rather than a single device, and may be physically packaged in more than one box. 8.3. Quantum Links A quantum link provides entanglement suitable for one of the application classes described in Section 7. Links are described in Section 16. 8.4. Photonic Synchronization Domains A photonic synchronization domain (PSD) is the range of devices and channels (fiber or free space) 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 in their wavepackets, as specified in [I-D.draft-hajdusek-qirg-timing-physics]. Note that the most common operational mode uses only pairs of photons, one from each of two nodes, not multi-photon operations; the definition of PSD does not imply that all channels in a network must be synchronized with each other and used in a single operation. 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 (sometimes called a "router") inside the node, in which case the choice of 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. Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 16] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 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. If the detectors are arranged as Bell State Analyzers (BSAs), we can call the architecture _BSA-centric_. This will be the common case. 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]. 8.8. Qubit-Level v. Device-Level Access Conventionally, entangled quantum networks are described in terms of unitary and non-unitary actions on qubits, just as the Internet protocols are defined in terms of bits and bytes (octets) rather than voltages, signal times and optical signal strengths. This _qubit- level access_ is natural and allows for technology-independent, high- level protocol development. However, as described above, quantum nodes are built of quantum devices, and at times it is preferable to use the hardware's _device- level access_. Such an access mode is inevitably hardware-dependent, requiring special-purpose software, limiting network scalability and code portability. Cases where device-level access is useful include: * as a building block for higher-level protocols; * during hardware development; * during system installation or maintenance at a customer site; * in link-level monitoring protocols; and Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 17] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 * when a multicomputer compiler and/or distributed-computation middleware wants to optimize the system for themselves, incorporating higher-level operations into its own application and using lower-level methods to access the system components on the wire. 9. Quantum Optical Building Blocks This section informally describes the physical building blocks and concepts used in the physical layer of a quantum network. These definitions will use equations defined in [I-D.draft-hajdusek-qirg-timing-physics]. 9.1. Qubits This network architecture uses 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 (defined in RFC 9340) must conform to a sufficient subset of the DiVincenzo criteria [divincenzo-criteria]. 9.2. Photons, Wave Packets and Optical Modes Loosely, a photon is a quantum of light. More detailed analysis of a photon requires understanding _wave packets_ and _optical modes_. An optical mode is a well-defined state of a physical link, specified by path, time window, frequency, polarization, or similar parameters, such that the receiver can be configured to monitor the channel and determine whether that state 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. (Perhaps a good analogy is the _constellation_ of states in a quadrature amplitude-modulated (QAM) signal, combined with whatever other multiplexing or signal encoding is used, such as temporal, spatial, or wavelength. The constellation is the full state space, and a mode is the equivalent of one of those states, which may be empty or occupied.) A wave packet is the non-zero amplitude of the electrical and magnetic fields, and generally corresponds to a single excitation of the electrical field, i.e. a single photon. The length of the wave packet is determined by the physics of the photon emission process, possibly modified by dispersion in the channel, and in turn determines the minimum length of a time slot in the link design. Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 18] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 In quantum networking, link capacity and state must be described in terms of modes, not photons; photons merely occupy modes, while empty modes correspond to vacuum states that are still physically and operationally meaningful. In idealized models, distinct modes correspond to orthogonal solutions of the field equations, ensuring perfect distinguishability. As an example, a quantum optical link may define one mode per time slot or detection 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. 9.3. Photonic Qubits Photons are used in networks to carry qubits. There are several possible on-the-wire photonic qubit representations, e.g. * Polarization (e.g. horizontal v. vertical) * Time bin (e.g. early v. late) * Which path (e.g. passing through a particular set of lenses or fibers) * Energy level (wavelength) These representations and more about the concept of an _optical mode_ are discussed in the "standard photon" and [I-D.draft-hajdusek-qirg-timing-physics] documents, and are provided here only for informational purposes. 9.4. Memories The physical implementation of memories is beyond the scope of this document. For architectural purposes, it matters 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. This process of accumulated errors is _decoherence_. Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 19] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 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. 9.5. 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. 9.5.1. 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. 9.5.2. 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. 9.5.3. 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. 9.6. 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. Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 20] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 10. 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. 10.1. Multicomputer The first deployment of production-level, distant quantum entanglement is likely to be in a _quantum multicomputer_ [rdv-thesis], based on the same principles as classical distributed- memory supercomputers from the Caltech Cosmic Cube [seitz-cosmic-cube] to Fugaku [wikipedia-fugaku]. 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 network design choices are in conflict or unclear, multicomputer designs are given priority over wide-area networks in this set of specifications. A multicomputer may be a noisy, intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) system without quantum error correction [preskill-nisq], or may be a fault-tolerant system. Fault-tolerant systems are variously described as fault-tolerant quantum computers (FTQC), fault-tolerant application-scale quantum (FASQ) systems, or cryptographically relevant quantum computers (CRQC). FTQCs require the network to generate many more entangled states with tight timing requirements to allow distributed quantum error correction or the creation of fully error-corrected entangled states for application use. The program structural model is expected to be much like the classical supercomputing Message Passing Interface (MPI) [mpi-5.0], in the sense that nodes cooperate in a tightly coupled fashion, exchanging data and controlling program execution, with each node executing a portion of a single, large computation. One specific implementation of Quantum MPI has, in fact, been proposed [haener-qmpi], but here we mean this in the broader sense. General hardware environment: Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 21] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 * 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. * 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). Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 22] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 * 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). * 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. * 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 (Section 12.6 and Section 14.3) 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 5 May 2027 [Page 23] Internet-Draft QNA November 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 in quantum multicomputer program execution 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 5 May 2027 [Page 24] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 * Quantum error correction is above the level of these specifications, but may involve distributed lattice surgery [ramette-remote], [leone-remote],[sinclair-ft-interconnect]. 10.2. 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. 10.3. 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 [aparicio-spie]. 10.4. 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 [chen-incast]. Management of this problem is beyond the scope of this document. 11. Requirements and Goals for the Architecture This section documents the requirements for all networks adhering to this architecture. Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 25] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 11.1. Normative Requirements * The architecture must support an open development process [RFC6852]. * The architecture must support the creation of robust, extensible, maintainable protocols in keeping with best current practice [RFC9413] [RFC6250] [RFC1958] [RFC5218]. 11.2. General Requirements 11.2.1. Functional Goals The following are goals of this architecture. Note that while the architectural decisions support all of these goals, individual implementations may not support every item in the list, i.e. a single-PSD implementation may not support memory-based entanglement swapping or may be insufficient for wide-area networking. * The architecture is defined only for 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. * The architecture defines support for pairwise Bell pair creation between nodes with one or more of the B, C or T timing classes in Section 7. (The architecture does not define multipartite states as a service of the network; applications that require them are responsible for building them from Bell pairs.) * The architecture is independent of physical implementation of memories, photonic data representations, etc. * The architecture supports deployments ranging from multicomputer to wide area networks. * The architecture supports 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 supports entanglement swapping. (Note that single PSD deployments may not need entanglement swapping.) * The architecture supports methods of assessing and managing errors, including photon loss and decoherence. Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 26] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 * The architecture aims to support evolution of single-photon, unentangled, single-purpose quantum key distribution networks (perhaps with trusted relay nodes) to fully entangled, multipurpose networks [wehner-roadmap]. 11.2.2. 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. 11.2.3. Physical Requirements Physical requirements such as distance, wavelength, vibration, power, etc. will be case-dependent. 11.2.4. Environmental Requirements Physical requirements such as distance, wavelength, vibration, power, etc. will be case-dependent. 11.3. Network Management Requirements Network management tasks largely revolve around installation, maintenance and fault isolation and correction. Links and nodes may also be enabled or disabled through automated or manual subsystems. 11.3.1. Configuration Management The architecture must support the use of both manual and automated network configuration tools to suit different installations and development processes. Configuration will include manual tasks such as physically setting up equipment, as described in Section 16.5. Configuration also includes setting up software: manually configuring node devices that do not autoconfigure; selecting, turning on, and configuring the quantum-related software services for the node; and configuring the underlying classical control operating system. Integration of these processes into existing or new network management tools is beyond the scope of this document. Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 27] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 11.3.2. Fault Management Quantum networks likely will be less stable than their classical counterparts for the foreseeable future. Hardware will require extremely low-level, hardware-dependent monitoring and adjustment. The architecture must: * support isolation of hardware and software faults, and * support monitoring and reporting of fidelity. Integration of these processes into existing or new network management tools is beyond the scope of this document. 11.3.3. Online Operations Link and node monitoring tools, either automated or manual, can enable or disable links and nodes. For example, a link that falls below a certain fidelity or entanglement generation rate may be taken out of service for maintenance. Such an action must notify the routing subsystem, which in turn will relay the information via routing protocols. The behavior of connections passing through nodes or links whose status changes to disabled is currently undefined. Integration of these processes into existing or new network management tools is beyond the scope of this document. 12. Architecture Overview This section describes key design decisions made to achieve the goals outlined in Section 11. Details are provided in the following sections. 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 5 May 2027 [Page 28] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 This control requires extensive classical communication, which is carried over a variety of channels Section 20, according to the requirements for various tasks [I-D.draft-hajdusek-qirg-timing-physics]. 12.2. Nodes, Links and Operational Views As with typical networks, this architecture comprises nodes (Section 15) and links (Section 16), which will connect two or more nodes. While the end-to-end goal is the delivery of qubit-based entanglement, for a variety of purposes lower-level access to hardware can be desirable, so nodes may present a qubit-level view (incorporated in the data plane) or a device-level view (incorporated in the device plane). 12.3. 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. More concretely, this architecture supports the B, C, and T application classes described in Section 7, requiring both Bell pairs and accompanying timestamps for some applications. Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 29] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 12.3.1. Bell Pairs as the Core Network Service 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. 12.3.2. Timing as a Critical Auxiliary Service 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. 12.4. Stateful Connections Along a Pre-established Path Connections in both 1G and 2G networks require entanglement swapping at the physical at logical level, respectively. Managing entanglement swapping to avoid the leapfrog problem and misrouted Bell pairs requires active, coordinated control of operations on qubits at multiple nodes in the network. In this architecture, this task is accomplished by establishing long-lived connections along a path selected at connection setup time. Each such connection consumes a small amount of classical memory at each repeater or router. Corresponding quantum resource management (buffering, multiplexing, etc.) is described below. Two connection setup mechanisms are supported: a two-pass mechanism suited for multi-hop communication, especially across technological or administrative boundaries, and a direct-control mechanism, best suited for data center-scale and locally-orchestrated communication. Authentication, authorization and accounting (AAA) and security concerns, including denial of service attacks, are beyond the scope of the present architecture. Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 30] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 12.5. Four-Layer Protocol Stack The protocol stack for creating end-to-end entangled states consists of four layers: physical, link, network, and application. The task of dealing with errors and ensuring reliable E2E creation, often handled in a transport layer that sits above the network layer, is subsumed into the network layer in this architecture. 12.6. RuleSet-based Network Layer 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) [farhadi-sdn] and Active Networks [tennenhouse-an-arch]. A RuleSet can also be viewed as something like a Berkeley Packet Filter (BPF) [mccanne-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. 12.7. Five Planes, or Views, of the Network A _plane_ is a view of the network, presented by the elements of the network for a particular purpose. This architecture provides five planes: device, quantum, data, control, and management, all described in Section 13. 13. Architectural Planes All nodes in the network will provide one or more of the following classes of interfaces, also referred to as _planes_. A plane provides a view of the network. Nodes that do not provide an interface are not visible on the corresponding plane. * *Device:* Control and monitoring of hardware devices such as switches, wave plates, detectors, etc. * *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. Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 31] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 * *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. 13.1. Device This view is primarily for low-level development and maintenance and as a building block for higher-level protocols and software, as discussed in Section 8.8. No interpretation of the classical data as qubits or controls as qubit unitary or non-unitary operations is provided here. Software packages providing this level of access to the devices include PnPQ [pnpq] and tdc_toolkit [tdc_toolkit]. Generally, network-level access to this functionality will be via a form of RPC or streaming data. 13.2. 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 is subject to the constraints in "Detector Timing Windows" in the Timing Regimes document [I-D.draft-hajdusek-qirg-timing-physics]. 13.3. 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. Data plane functions may share data with management plane functions as part of the link management process, e.g. using disti-mation [casapao-disti-mation]. If this is done, security and privacy concerns must be addressed. Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 32] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 The control plane functionality executes the functions described as "Pre-configured Event-driven Tasks" in the Timing Regimes document [I-D.draft-hajdusek-qirg-timing-physics]. 13.4. 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 [I-D.draft-hajdusek-qirg-timing-physics]. 13.5. 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 device plane, data plane and control plane operations. The management plane functionality executes the functions described as "Background Tasks" in the Timing Regimes document [I-D.draft-hajdusek-qirg-timing-physics]. 14. 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 5 May 2027 [Page 33] Internet-Draft QNA November 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. Classical network protocol layering is often presumed to include the sequential addition of headers while preparing a packet for transmission and processing proceeds down the protocol stack, with the process inverted on packet reception. In quantum networks, the qubits themselves are not processed in this stacked fashion, and the related classical information typically involves separate messages with separate end points as hop-by-hop entanglement is extended to end-to- end entanglement through the actions of nodes all along the path. Nevertheless, the notion of _layers of responsibility_ or _separation of concerns_ is valid,with different needs at the link, network, and application. (More to be added here.) +---------------------------+ | Application | +---------------------------+ | Network (RuleSet) | +---------------------------+ | Link | +---------------------------+ | Physical | +---------------------------+ Figure 1: Protocol Layers 14.1. Physical Layer The physical layer incorporates the quantum channel itself, whether free space or waveguide. Specifcation of the physical layer is out of scope for this document, but the physical-layer specifications must include: Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 34] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 * signal transmission characteristics of the channel * how nodes physically connect to the channel * choice of photonic qubit * wavelength * wave packet envelope shape and duration * timing/trial rate * how link synchronization is achieved * certain characteristics of detection subsystem Additional details on how to specify a physical layer will be presented in documents on the "standard photon" and "photon train", which are currently being drafted. 14.2. Link Layer The primary service provided by the link layer is heralded, named entanglement across a quantum channel with defined endpoints [I-D.draft-dahlberg-ll-quantum], [dahlberg-ll-arxiv], [delle-donne-thesis], [delle-donne-os-nature]. The link layer sits below the network layer and uses physical-layer quantum phenomena plus classical messaging to provide its service. In this architecture, the link service provides only bipartite entanglement. The link layer architecture will support B, C and T class applications, though not all links are required to support all classes. In support of these classes, the entangled states may be either still active and available for further use by the network layer, or one or both of the qubits may already have been measured, with the measurement basis and results and possibly a high-precision timestamp recorded and reported. See p. 36 of [delle-donne-thesis] for a description of the link service. They refer to K-type (keep), M-type (measure) and R-type (remote) entanglement requests. The link layer may deliver entangled states to the network layer either singly or as an ordered, tagged batch. The link may operate entirely on demand, or as an always-on, free- running service where requests from the network layer are serviced by using recently created entanglement. Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 35] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 The network layer can request states at one end where the status of the qubit at the other end is unknown, in either heralding or Pauli frame. This is necessary to support B class applications. For multidrop links, the link layer must coordinate with multiplexing and switch control as part of the control plane [I-D.draft-zhu-qirg-qdcp]. The link may consist of several network nodes. Besides the two endpoints, switches, BSAs, and EPPSes may be involved. Although these support nodes are part of the network architecture, their presence is not visible beyond the boundaries of the link or PSD. In this architecture, fidelity is the responsibility of the network layer; the link layer always provides raw Bell pairs of base fidelity. Thus, fidelity is part of neither the request to nor response from the link layer. During connection setup, information about link fidelity is acquired from the link management and used by the Responder to plan the connection. Thus, link monitoring and link fidelity management are the responsibility of the link architecture but are not part of the link layer protocol. * "message" format * addressing * multiplexing for multi-drop links 14.3. Network Layer: RuleSets The network layer is responsible for both single- and multi-hop purification, and for entanglement swapping. The network layer subsumes the functions commonly divided into network and transport in many architectures. In this architecture, the network layer is a lightweight, restricted (not Turing complete) distributed computation platform known as RuleSets. RuleSets are distributed to nodes during the connection setup process Section 17. RuleSets themselves are a form of state, and they maintain internal state during the life of the connection. The syntax and semantics of RuleSets are described in [matsuo-link-boot] [matsuo-ms-thesis] [satoh-ms-thesis] [aqua-ruleset-spec]. Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 36] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 14.4. Application Layer Definition of the application layer protocols is beyond the scope of this document. 15. 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. In our architecture, we classify nodes into three main groups: 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 (a document to be published) will provide 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. 15.1. 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 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], Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 37] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 [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 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]. Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 38] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 15.2. 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], [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. Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 39] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 *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. An OSW node contains at least one switch device, which comprises at least once switch point. 15.3. 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 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. Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 40] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 15.4. 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. 16. Links 16.1. 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. Generally, the physical link entanglement generation mechanism is probabilistic but heralded. Although it is possible to use repeated trials to present a near-deterministic service [humphreys-deterministic-link], in this architecture we choose instead to expose the asynchronous creation of Bell pairs with timestamps. (Does software control of buffer qubits appear in the architecture, or is it purely an implementation detail?) 16.2. Link/Network Layer Interface The link/network interface is best described as a software interface, executed separately at each link endpoint. The network-->link request: * addresses of nodes * single/fixed number/stream * disposition: keep or measure, basis The link-->network response: * addresses of nodes * length of array of entangled states * array of entangled states - identifier for entangled state Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 41] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 - (timestamp separate from identifier? needed or not?) - flags o confirmed/pending confirmation o measured/live - if measured, basis - if measured, result 16.3. Link Structures 16.3.1. 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 * MIM: memory-interference-memory * MSM: memory-source-memory * MM: memory-memory * DSISD: detector-source-inteference-source-detector Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 42] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 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?) 16.3.2. 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. The photonic path description notation will include no 'X's. 16.3.3. 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]. The photonic path description notation will include one or more 'X's. 16.3.4. Multidrop or Bus A multidrop link, or a bus, is a shared physical channel to which more than two stations may be attached. 16.4. Link Design Choices and Operational Settings Beyond the top-level architecture of the link, defining placement of subsystems (MIM, MSM, or MM links), and choice of photonic qubit (polarization, time bin, etc.), designers make many choices that affect performance, robustness, and interoperability. Many of these choices will remain implicit, but others will be reported or managed through link management software (below). Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 43] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 Links depend upon other parameters of the physical channel and equipment, including: * entanglement generation trial rate, * driving laser power (e.g. for SPDC-based EPPS), * duration and spacing of photon detection windows, * detector amplifier settings, and * other hardware-specific parameters. Depending on the implementation, some of these parameters can be modified under software control, some can be monitored and reported, and some are only available to software if manually added to a configuration database. Note that this task is far more complicated in a switched or multidrop configuration than in a point-to-point configuration. 16.5. Installing and Bootstrapping a Link During installation and/or bootstrapping of a link (and monitoring during operation), qubit- and technology-appropriate reference frames must be established. For example, the sender and receiver, or sender and both receivers in the case of an EPPS-based link, must agree on "horizontal" and "vertical" when using polarization qubits or "early" and "late" when using time bin qubits. A time reference may also be required for timestamping events such as photon detection time Section 12.3.2. For computational and cryptographic applications, these reference frames are entirely arbitrary across a link or PSD; in fact, it only matters that the link participants can agree on two orthogonal states usable as a qubit, and can correctly agree upon matching of events such as photon detection. For sensing applications (including clock synchronization), depending on the application, these reference frames may need to be tied to physical ground truth or a standard reference. Whether the link reference frames are absolute or relative should be reported in link management information. Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 44] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 16.6. Spontaneous Changes to Link Conditions During ordinary operations, the physical parameters of the channel may change either gradually or suddenly. Gradual changes may be due to e.g. temperature changes over a 24-hour cycle. Sudden changes may be due to e.g. physical contact with or jostling of optical fibers or other vibration- and position-sensitive optical equipment. Detection of such changes is the responsibility of link management services (below). Note that this task is far more complicated in a switched or multidrop configuration than in a point-to-point configuration. Depending on operational needs and the severity of such changes, necessary adjustments may be conducted without suspending link operation or may require the link to be declared down long enough for recalibration to be conducted. In extreme cases, manual intervention may be required. 16.7. Link and Channel Management The first task of link management is naturally configuration of the link. During operation, the ongoing tasks include management of fidelity, trial rate, detection parameters, etc. Supplies information about link fidelity and rate to other subsystems such as routing and connection setup. 17. 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 Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 45] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 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. 18. Application Layer 18.1. 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. 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. The discovery of the physical topology can be based on link state protocols, such as direct adaptation of OSPF or IS-IS [I-D.draft-kaws-qirg-advent]. These protocols use a unitless link cost. It is known that, at least for certain physical systems, selecting a link cost corresponding to "seconds per Bell pair of a given fidelity" produces good correlation between low path cost and high throughput [van-meter-sys-design], [van-meter-path-sel]. A number of approaches have been proposed [abane-routing]. 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. Classical communication takes three major forms: * direct physical signal * request for an action, formulated as a remote procedure call (RPC) Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 46] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 * a stream of events 20.1. Device Plane Device plane classical communications will be via RPC or streaming data service, as appropriate. Details are beyond the scope of this document. 20.2. Quantum Plane The quantum plane includes some classical signals to support tasks described in Section 13.2. These signals are generally hard real time, used for demarking per-qubit time bins and possibly the start and end of longer trains of qubits or photons for switching purposes, triggering emission of photons, etc. These signals may also be non- coding, involved in link management rather than creation of qubits. Not all quantum link designs will require such classical signals. Due to the hard real time nature of communications at this level, these signals are not carried over TCP/IP and indeed may be analog events rather than digitized signals. Links should be designed with soft-failure behavior such that synchronization and full link operation can be recovered without manual intervention after the loss of individual signal events or short outages. Where appropriate, the status of such classical communication should be reported to or made available to management tools as part of link health monitoring. The details at this level are generally link-specific and are beyond the scope of this architecture document. 20.3. Data Plane Classical communication within the data plane sits above the link, and concerns the creation of end-to-end entangled states for established connections, as described in Section 13.3. * connection-level control of switching of photons * soft real-time event notification for RuleSets Messages in the data plane are generally soft real time and assumed to be reliable. Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 47] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 20.4. Control Plane Within the control plane, all communication is classical, supporting the establishment of connections and management of resources as described in Section 13.4. * connection-level control of switching of photons * soft real-time event notification for RuleSets 20.5. Management plane: Node and link management Within the management plane, all communication is classical, supporting the network monitoring and management of links and ordinary network node management, as described in Section 13.5. * 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 20.6. 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 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 Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 48] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 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 . 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 _sequence number_ by the local RuleSet engine. The combination 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 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 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--- 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. Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 49] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 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 Point-to-Point Small networks may use nodes with multiple interfaces and provide a direct link between each pair of nodes, making a _direct_ network. Assuming sufficient node-internal capabilities, such a network provides lowest loss (giving the fastest individual links) and the highest aggregate bandwidth, and is inherently nonblocking. However, with n-1 links per node and O(n^2) links in the network, its scalability is poor. It will always provide the highest performance, but not necessarily highest price/performance ratio. If links are midpoint interference-based, an issue in design is packaging of the BSAs and detectors. PSD: Each link is a separate PSD. All paths: MIM 22.2. Single Optical Switch A number of the early quantum multicomputer proposals assumed a single, large optical switch. Such a network is _indirect_. PSD: Although the entire network is a single PSD, each pairing is adjusted independently. All paths: MXIXM 22.3. 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]. PSD: Although the entire network is a single PSD, each pairing is adjusted independently. For DPFD topologies: * Shortest paths Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 50] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 - 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 * 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 22.4. 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, Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 51] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 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. PSD: Although the entire network is a single PSD, each pairing is adjusted independently. 22.5. Repeater Fat Tree The repeater fat tree is described in [choi-fat-tree]. PSD: Each link is a separate PSD. 22.6. 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. PSD: Each link is a separate PSD. 22.7. 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 [ciobanu-multi-ring] (something from Simon's group). PSD: Each link is a separate PSD. 22.8. QLAN A quantum local area network will have: * irregular topology, possibly of heterogeneous link types * distributed multiplexing * distributed routing PSD: If the QLAN does not include optical switches, but uses repeaters, each link is a separate PSD. If the QLAN includes optical switches, the PSDs may have irregular boundaries. Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 52] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 23. 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 [satoh-attacking]. Similarly, the relationship to AAA (authentication, authorization and accounting) is an open topic for research. 24. References 24.1. 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, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . 24.2. Informative References [abane-routing] Abane, A., Cubeddu, M., Mai, V., and A. Battou, "Entanglement Routing in Quantum Networks: A Comprehensive Survey", Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering vol. 6, pp. 1-39, DOI 10.1109/tqe.2025.3541123, 2025, . [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, . [ambainis-multiparty-coin] Ambainis, A., Buhrman, H., Dodis, Y., and H. Rohrig, "Multiparty quantum coin flipping", IEEE, Proceedings. Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 53] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 19th IEEE Annual Conference on Computational Complexity, 2004. pp. 250-259, DOI 10.1109/ccc.2004.1313848, November 2004, . [aparicio-spie] Aparicio, L. and R. Van Meter, "Multiplexing schemes for quantum repeater networks", SPIE, SPIE Proceedings vol. 8163, pp. 816308, DOI 10.1117/12.893272, September 2011, . [aqua-ruleset-spec] AQUA, "RuleSetSpec", 2023, . [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, . [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, . [azuma-rmp] Azuma, K., Economou, S., Elkouss, D., Hilaire, P., Jiang, L., Lo, H., and I. Tzitrin, "Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet", American Physical Society (APS), Reviews of Modern Physics vol. 95, no. 4, DOI 10.1103/revmodphys.95.045006, December 2023, . Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 54] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 [BB84] Bennett, C. and G. Brassard, "Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing", Elsevier BV, Theoretical Computer Science vol. 560, pp. 7-11, DOI 10.1016/j.tcs.2014.05.025, December 2014, . [BBM92] Bennett, C., Brassard, G., and N. Mermin, "Quantum cryptography without Bell’s theorem", American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review Letters vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 557-559, DOI 10.1103/physrevlett.68.557, February 1992, . [benchasattabuse-res-mgmt-het] Benchasattabuse, N., "Resource Management in Heterogeneous Quantum Repeater Networks", Ph.D. Dissertation, Keio University, 2025, . [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, . [bennett-teleportation] Bennett, C., Brassard, G., Crépeau, C., Jozsa, R., Peres, A., and W. Wootters, "Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels", American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review Letters vol. 70, no. 13, pp. 1895-1899, DOI 10.1103/physrevlett.70.1895, March 1993, . [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, . Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 55] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 [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, . [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, . [casapao-disti-mation] Casapao, J., Maity, A., Benchasattabuse, N., Hajdušek, M., Van Meter, R., and D. Elkouss, "Disti-Mator, an entanglement distillation-based state estimator", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Communications Physics vol. 8, no. 1, DOI 10.1038/s42005-025-02352-2, November 2025, . [chen-incast] Chen, Y., Griffith, R., Liu, J., Katz, R., and A. Joseph, "Understanding TCP incast throughput collapse in datacenter networks", ACM, Proceedings of the 1st ACM workshop on Research on enterprise networking pp. 73-82, DOI 10.1145/1592681.1592693, August 2009, . [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, . [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, . Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 56] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 [ciobanu-multi-ring] Ciobanu, B., Calafeteanu, T., Popa, A., Tătăroiu, R., and P. Popescu, "Optimal entanglement distribution within a multi-ring topology", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Scientific Reports vol. 15, no. 1, DOI 10.1038/s41598-025-00391-x, May 2025, . [dahlberg-ll-arxiv] Dahlberg, A., Skrzypczyk, M., Coopmans, T., Wubben, L., Rozpędek, F., Pompili, M., Stolk, A., Pawełczak, P., Knegjens, R., Filho, J., Hanson, R., and S. Wehner, "A Link Layer Protocol for Quantum Networks", arXiv, arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.1903.09778, 2019, . [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, . [delle-donne-os-arxiv] Donne, C., Iuliano, M., van der Vecht, B., Ferreira, G., Jirovská, H., van der Steenhoven, T., Dahlberg, A., Skrzypczyk, M., Fioretto, D., Teller, M., Filippov, P., Montblanch, A., Fischer, J., van Ommen, B., Demetriou, N., Leichtle, D., Music, L., Ollivier, H., Raa, I., Kozlowski, W., Taminiau, T., Pawełczak, P., Northup, T., Hanson, R., and S. Wehner, "Design and demonstration of an operating system for executing applications on quantum network nodes", arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.2407.18306, 2024, . [delle-donne-os-nature] Delle Donne, C., Iuliano, M., van der Vecht, B., Ferreira, G., Jirovská, H., van der Steenhoven, T., Dahlberg, A., Skrzypczyk, M., Fioretto, D., Teller, M., Filippov, P., Montblanch, A., Fischer, J., van Ommen, H., Demetriou, N., Leichtle, D., Music, L., Ollivier, H., te Raa, I., Kozlowski, W., Taminiau, T., Pawełczak, P., Northup, T., Hanson, R., and S. Wehner, "An operating system for Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 57] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 executing applications on quantum network nodes", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Nature vol. 639, no. 8054, pp. 321-328, DOI 10.1038/s41586-025-08704-w, March 2025, . [delle-donne-thesis] Delle Donne, C., "Software Abstractions for Programmable Quantum Network Nodes", Ph.D. Dissertation, Technical University Delft, 2023, . [divincenzo-criteria] DiVincenzo, D. and IBM, "The Physical Implementation of Quantum Computation", arXiv, arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.QUANT-PH/0002077, 2000, . [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, . [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, . [dur-purification] Dür, W. and H. Briegel, "Entanglement purification and quantum error correction", IOP Publishing, Reports on Progress in Physics vol. 70, no. 8, pp. 1381-1424, DOI 10.1088/0034-4885/70/8/r03, July 2007, . [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, . Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 58] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 [E91] Ekert, A., "Quantum cryptography based on Bell’s theorem", American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review Letters vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 661-663, DOI 10.1103/physrevlett.67.661, August 1991, . [eisert-remote-gate] Eisert, J., Jacobs, K., Papadopoulos, P., and M. Plenio, "Optimal local implementation of nonlocal quantum gates", American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review A vol. 62, no. 5, DOI 10.1103/physreva.62.052317, October 2000, . [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, . [farhadi-sdn] Farhady, H., Lee, H., and A. Nakao, "Software-Defined Networking: A survey", Elsevier BV, Computer Networks vol. 81, pp. 79-95, DOI 10.1016/j.comnet.2015.02.014, April 2015, . [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, . [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, . [fitzsimons-blind] Fitzsimons, J., "Private quantum computation: an introduction to blind quantum computing and related protocols", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, npj Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 59] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 Quantum Information vol. 3, no. 1, DOI 10.1038/s41534-017-0025-3, June 2017, . [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, . [ghz] Greenberger, D., Horne, M., and A. Zeilinger, "Going Beyond Bell's Theorem", arXiv, arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.0712.0921, 2007, . [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, . [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, . [haener-qmpi] Häner, T., Steiger, D., Hoefler, T., and M. Troyer, "Distributed quantum computing with QMPI", ACM, Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis pp. 1-13, DOI 10.1145/3458817.3476172, November 2021, . [hajdusek-qcomm] Hajdušek, M. and R. Van Meter, "Quantum Communications", arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.2311.02367, 2023, . [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 Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 60] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 photons", American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review A vol. 107, no. 2, DOI 10.1103/physreva.107.022615, February 2023, . [hein-graph-entanglement] Hein, M., Dür, W., Eisert, J., Raussendorf, R., Van den Nest, M., and H. Briegel, "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, . [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, . [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, . [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, . [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, . Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 61] Internet-Draft QNA November 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, . [humphreys-deterministic-link] Humphreys, P., Kalb, N., Morits, J., Schouten, R., Vermeulen, R., Twitchen, D., Markham, M., and R. Hanson, "Deterministic delivery of remote entanglement on a quantum network", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Nature vol. 558, no. 7709, pp. 268-273, DOI 10.1038/s41586-018-0200-5, June 2018, . [I-D.draft-dahlberg-ll-quantum] Dahlberg, A., Skrzypczyk, M., and S. Wehner, "The Link Layer service in a Quantum Internet", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-dahlberg-ll-quantum-03, 10 October 2019, . [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-01, 18 March 2026, . [I-D.draft-kaws-qirg-advent] Kompella, K., Aelmans, M., Wehner, S., Sirbu, C., and A. Dahlberg, "Advertising Entanglement Capabilities in Quantum Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-kaws-qirg-advent-03, 27 March 2019, . [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, . Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 62] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 [I-D.draft-zhu-qirg-qdcp] Zhu, A., Zhang, Y., Broberg, R. M., Feng, L., and J. M. Smith, "Quantum Datagram Control Protocol (QDCP) for IP Optical Environments", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-zhu-qirg-qdcp-01, 1 April 2026, . [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, . [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, . [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, . [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, . [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, . Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 63] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 [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, . [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, . [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, . [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, . [matsuo-link-boot] Matsuo, T., Durand, C., and R. Van Meter, "Quantum link bootstrapping using a RuleSet-based communication protocol", American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review A vol. 100, no. 5, DOI 10.1103/physreva.100.052320, November 2019, . [matsuo-ms-thesis] Matsuo, T., "Simulation of a Dynamic, RuleSet-based Quantum Network", arXiv, arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.1908.10758, 2019, . Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 64] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 [mayers-unconditional] Mayers, D., "Unconditional security in Quantum Cryptography", arXiv, arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.QUANT- PH/9802025, 1998, . [mccanne-bpf] McCanne, S. and V. Jacobson, "The BSD packet filter: a new architecture for user-level packet capture", USENIX'93: Proceedings of the USENIX Winter 1993 Conference Proceedings on USENIX Winter 1993 Conference Proceedings, 25 January 1993. [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, . [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, . [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, . [mpi-5.0] Message_Passing_Interface_Forum, "MPI A Message-Passing Interface Standard Version 5.0", June 2025, . [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, . Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 65] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 [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, . [pnpq] Taherkhani, A., Todd, A., Matsumiya, L., and T. Shen, "PnPQ", Zenodo, DOI 10.5281/ZENODO.16886214, October 2026, . [preskill-nisq] Preskill, J., "Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond", Verein zur Forderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften, Quantum vol. 2, pp. 79, DOI 10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79, August 2018, . [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, . [proctor-quantum-sensing] Proctor, T., Knott, P., and J. Dunningham, "Networked quantum sensing", arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.1702.04271, 2017, . [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, . [rdv-thesis] Van Meter III, R. D., "Architecture of a Quantum Multicomputer Optimized for Shor's Factoring Algorithm", Ph.D. Dissertation, Keio University, 2006, . [RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989, . Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 66] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 [RFC1123] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, DOI 10.17487/RFC1123, October 1989, . [RFC1958] Carpenter, B., Ed., "Architectural Principles of the Internet", RFC 1958, DOI 10.17487/RFC1958, June 1996, . [RFC5218] Thaler, D. and B. Aboba, "What Makes for a Successful Protocol?", RFC 5218, DOI 10.17487/RFC5218, July 2008, . [RFC6250] Thaler, D., "Evolution of the IP Model", RFC 6250, DOI 10.17487/RFC6250, May 2011, . [RFC6852] Housley, R., Mills, S., Jaffe, J., Aboba, B., and L. St.Amour, "Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for Standards", RFC 6852, DOI 10.17487/RFC6852, January 2013, . [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, . [RFC9413] Thomson, M. and D. Schinazi, "Maintaining Robust Protocols", RFC 9413, DOI 10.17487/RFC9413, June 2023, . [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, . [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, . Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 67] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 [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, . [sane-phonons] Sane, B., Meter, R., and M. Hajdusek, "Fight or Flight: Cosmic Ray-Induced Phonons and the Quantum Surface Code*", IEEE, 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) pp. 1378-1388, DOI 10.1109/qce57702.2023.00156, September 2023, . [satoh-attacking] Satoh, T., Nagayama, S., Suzuki, S., Matsuo, T., Hajdusek, M., and R. Meter, "Attacking the Quantum Internet", Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering vol. 2, pp. 1-17, DOI 10.1109/tqe.2021.3094983, 2021, . [satoh-ms-thesis] Satoh, R., "RuLa A Programming Language for RuleSet-based Quantum Repeaters", M.S. Thesis, Keio University, 2023, . [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, . [seitz-cosmic-cube] Seitz, C., "The cosmic cube", Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Communications of the ACM vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 22-33, DOI 10.1145/2465.2467, January 1985, . [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, . Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 68] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 [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, . [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, . [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, . [tdc_toolkit] Todd, A. and K. Teramoto, "tdc_toolkit", Zenodo, DOI 10.5281/ZENODO.16932740, June 2026, . [tennenhouse-an-arch] Tennenhouse, D. and D. Wetherall, "Towards an active network architecture", Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 5-17, DOI 10.1145/231699.231701, April 1996, . [van-meter-dist-arith] Meter, R., Munro, W., Nemoto, K., and K. Itoh, "Arithmetic on a distributed-memory quantum multicomputer", Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), ACM Journal on Emerging Technologies in Computing Systems vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1-23, DOI 10.1145/1324177.1324179, January 2008, . Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 69] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 [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, . [van-meter-path-sel] Van Meter, R., Satoh, T., Ladd, T., Munro, W., and K. Nemoto, "Path selection for quantum repeater networks", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Networking Science vol. 3, no. 1-4, pp. 82-95, DOI 10.1007/s13119-013-0026-2, December 2013, . [van-meter-q-net-book] Van Meter, R., "Quantum Networking", Wiley, DOI 10.1002/9781118648919, ISBN ["9781848215375", "9781118648919"], April 2014, . [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, . [van-meter-sys-design] Van Meter, R., Ladd, T., Munro, W., and K. Nemoto, "System Design for a Long-Line Quantum Repeater", Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 1002-1013, DOI 10.1109/tnet.2008.927260, June 2009, . [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, . Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 70] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 [wehner-roadmap] Wehner, S., Elkouss, D., and R. Hanson, "Quantum internet: A vision for the road ahead", American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Science vol. 362, no. 6412, DOI 10.1126/science.aam9288, October 2018, . [wikipedia-fugaku] Wikipedia_contributors, "Fugaku (supercomputer)", September 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, . [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, . [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, . Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 71] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 [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, . [yu-two-level] Yu, S., Perego, E., Phillips, J., Cheah, Y., Umesh, P., Gao, G., Liu, J., Kissel, E., Bregar, M., Sun, K., Wu, Q., Valivarthi, R., Saglamyurek, E., Wu, W., Spiropulu, M., Häffner, H., and I. Monga, "A Two-Level Control Framework for Quantum Networks", IEEE, 2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) pp. 1302-1311, DOI 10.1109/qce65121.2025.00145, August 2025, . [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, . Contributors 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. Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 72] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 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. 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 Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 73] Internet-Draft QNA November 2026 Amin Taherkhani Keio University 5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa 252-0882 Japan Email: amin@sfc.wide.ad.jp Van Meter, et al. Expires 5 May 2027 [Page 74]