Re: [Qirg] draft-wang-qirg-quantum-internet-use-cases-05 - Feedback on WG Adoption

Wojciech Kozlowski <> Wed, 29 April 2020 11:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DB973A0D71 for <>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 04:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.786
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.786 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z-Ep39u0YXgl for <>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 04:48:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3F983A0D70 for <>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 04:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by amavis (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73D80400CA; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:48:28 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id DUQHgabwyc6v; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:48:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE223400AE; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:48:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P521) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:48:25 +0200
Received: from ([fe80::dc7a:a6b8:8bb9:2210]) by ([fe80::dc7a:a6b8:8bb9:2210%13]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:48:25 +0200
From: Wojciech Kozlowski <>
To: "" <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Qirg] draft-wang-qirg-quantum-internet-use-cases-05 - Feedback on WG Adoption
Thread-Index: AdYOeW1BB943du4wSDuZaWJg1mlbTAOBK+iAAAltxYAAKnVsgAAd85sQAA/qNoAAABFJgAABezwA
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 11:48:25 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, nl-NL, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_d773c1aa6afeff7d9e4967fef735481ec9b4a541cameltudelftnl_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Qirg] draft-wang-qirg-quantum-internet-use-cases-05 - Feedback on WG Adoption
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Quantum Internet \(proposed\) RG" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 11:48:35 -0000

Good point. It's on my todo list to organise an extra meeting to discuss the last sections of the principles draft anyway. We could start that meeting with this and make it a 1.5 hour call as opposed to 1 hour. Or we can have two separate calls (though having just one is slightly easier to organise). I will discuss it with Rod. The last of the 107 replacement meetings happened on Tuesday so I should start looking into it soon. I will send an update when I know more.

On Wed, 2020-04-29 at 12:05 +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
On 29 Apr 2020, at 12:04, Tim Chown <<>> wrote:

It’s also quite possible to request an interim meeting to discuss specific drafts or WG topics, if you feel an “in person” discussion is useful here.

Oops, insert “another” in there.

I think we’re getting used to more online meetings, so using them to help drive work forward is worth considering

Personally I think it’s a well written and useful draft, and some discussion online in a call would be good to see.  We don’t have to wait until IETF 108, which would I assume be an online meeting anyway.

Best wishes,


On 29 Apr 2020, at 02:29, Chonggang Wang <<>> wrote:

Thanks, Wojtek! We are ok with your suggestion.

From: Wojciech Kozlowski <<>>
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 9:10 AM
To:<> <<>>; Chonggang Wang <<>>
Subject: Re: [Qirg] draft-wang-qirg-quantum-internet-use-cases-05 - Feedback on WG Adoption

See in-line

On Mon, 2020-04-27 at 15:02 +0000, Chonggang Wang wrote:
Hi Wojtek,

Thank you for your email. Please see my responses inline below.

Best regards,

From: Qirg <<>> On Behalf Of Wojciech Kozlowski
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Qirg] draft-wang-qirg-quantum-internet-use-cases-05 - Feedback on WG Adoption

Hi Chonggang,

Thanks for your work on this draft. The question about adoption is important and there should've been some time left for this question at the virtual interim. It's my fault for packing the agenda too tightly so I do apologise for that.

[CW]: It’s not an issue. I have followed your advice to continue the question through the mailing list and positive feedback about adoption has been received.

There have been voices of support on the mailing list so perhaps we can leave this question until the next meeting (virtual or face-to-face) so it can be discussed properly? We can then make sure it receives the right amount of time on the agenda.

[CW]: It seems IETF/IRTF WG/RG adoption decisions typically can be made on the mailing list.  We presented the draft during the virtual F2F, and there has been substantial discussions on the mailing list (over the last few months) and good support for adoption on the mailing list (over the last few weeks).  So another approach would be to adopt it now (as it has met all the typical adoption criteria in IRTF).  However, we can also wait until the next virtual interim if you feel more presentations and discussions would be useful.  We (as the authors) are good with either approach.

[WK] Yes, can we please wait until the next meeting. My suggestion was motivated by the fact that I'm under the impression that the mailing list gets less attention from the community shortly after a meeting. This tends to pick up again in the run-up to the next meeting. The support indicated on the mailing list is positive and together with Rod we will make sure sufficient time is allocated for this point at the next meeting and the charter definitely indicates a need for a discussion about use cases. This is what I meant that there should've been time at the previous meeting for this. If there won't be a QIRG meeting at IETF 108 (virtual or F2F), we can revisit it on the mailing list then to not delay unnecessarily.


On Thu, 2020-04-09 at 14:22 +0000, Chonggang Wang wrote:
Hi All,

As you know, draft-wang-qirg-quantum-internet-use-cases-05 was presented in yesterday’s interim meeting. We are following chairs’ advice to continue discussion on the mailing list.

This I-D was initiated in Jan 2020. Since then, many valuable inputs have been received from QIRG community and this I-D has been revised for five rounds.  We would like to get and appreciate your feedback on:

Is this I-D ready for WG adoption?

Best regards,



ABI - Streaming Media Report<>

This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to anyone other than its intended recipient. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of any privilege or confidentiality obligation. If you received this communication in error, please do not review, copy or distribute it, notify me immediately by email, and delete the original message and any attachments. Unless expressly stated in this e-mail, nothing in this message or any attachment should be construed as a digital or electronic signature.


Qirg mailing list<><>

Qirg mailing list<><>