Re: [Qirg] [irsg] IRSG review request: draft-irtf-qirg-quantum-internet-use-cases

[Chonggang Wang <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mallory,

Thank you again for your valuable feedback and constructive suggestions for us to improve the document.

We have revised the document according to your comments and just uploaded a new version v18 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-qirg-quantum-internet-use-cases/18/).

We also provided one-on-one responses to your comments inline below with my initial CW. Please let us know if you have further comments.

Best regards,
Chonggang
(On Behalf of Co-Authors)

From: Qirg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Chonggang Wang
Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2023 4:42 PM
To: Mallory Knodel <mknodel=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: Internet Research Steering Group <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Qirg] [irsg] IRSG review request: draft-irtf-qirg-quantum-internet-use-cases
Hi Mallory, Thank you very much for your detailed reviews, feedback, and insights. We plan to address your comments within one week and will get back to you soon. Best regards,Chonggang(On behalf of co-authors) From: Qirg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Mallory KnodelS ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

<https://us.report.cybergraph.mimecast.com/alert-details/?dep=nSQYarOmDrr%2FYXV7K7ayGw%3D%3DVE2vkLZ9Ux6e7aZGD2AzBRPNwcBtuguWhHITtvZC4i11KQMj70Y8JR2TCvNrJO4%2FoHvYVrsAml%2BIO%2FF7zDXrOJ7KM%2FUsEqiJSoLriQha3Hghcv4AjB0xsaUlZaIVZjv69XFuztgiLIDeH0lIl0JQ%2FHPqnM3C6ZGdcIChqGeiKEidNroAl2dzvau9yzaTbKevGXA1rklbV%2BaGt1N2orTdC0sMH7%2BKSSwzBbh2cw7h8TYCtT2DI3gFIqXfs1U0YRyGeYiR%2BDWEmnOIXaGqp7Yk0%2BEVCn6ofDYPVtEOUXS3eKiKZ2QfEdH%2FZquScpvmcUhdIGVMAoQn5%2B5%2BrejVItU87RqgZ9%2FoJqinajfxXvB1LFQ0jVMppWkzVqeZQ6YCEefXyTurOb2p8q2Sc3XDGri1gZtAWRZZ%2BMdAzLH3pO4kdoZgNu8Gt4hczGAbzC9nzI84Q6%2F9%2FBroUEF2gAKkOcuBAbN%2BNYwhPeEq15G9bc6nWl9qLDNEPMjMjjvwF8pzxRQuMab4PHZp4CjOtp4TpYK0xEfHui%2FQ3LRLGCDl18PToTaccCeG0smOyziu5DdS%2BRSKmA9ZZdb7Py6%2BDwILYl171STIbkwI1IeQa4vpaxFAe4tNbvDyHq%2BV5%2BU4OCsHeCbSPYgk3e4W%2BUfAbajc%2FAXLmRNBPqrSHpITVjSd%2FKmlfpT8q%2B2HhcZAC%2BBEk14UO51NoeyYVhpKTkxa0ETuKi%2B%2Fl%2BL66kCu1btMkQbD5%2Bx3DWE%3D>
Hi Mallory,

Thank you very much for your detailed reviews, feedback, and insights. We plan to address your comments within one week and will get back to you soon.
Best regards,

Chonggang
(On behalf of co-authors)
From: Qirg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Mallory Knodel
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 12:10 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Internet Research Steering Group <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Qirg] [irsg] IRSG review request: draft-irtf-qirg-quantum-internet-use-cases
Hi all,

I’ve conducted an IRSG review as per the below.

First this is really important work and a very interesting draft. I
learned a lot and I especially appreciate how thorough the draft is in
its external references to related work.

I have categorized my review feedback into substance and readability below.

Substance:

* 3.2.3: It would be very interesting to have a reference to or elaborated text on the sentence "Sometimes, to run such applications in the cloud while preserving the privacy, a client and a server need to exchange qubits." I don't immediately understand user privacy issues here.
CW: Good point. Added a reference and rephrased that sentence to "Sometimes, to run such applications in the cloud while preserving the privacy, a client and a server need to exchange qubits (e.g., in blind quantum computation [Fitzsimons] as described below)."

* The first scenario in 4.1. opens with a very specific example of an exchange between two banks. However the other two (4.2. or 4.3.) don't do this and remain somewhat agnostic. Either deprecate the first paragraph in 4.1. to be the second paragraph (preserves readability) or try to harmonise the way you approach the sections with specific examples. Another way to say this, I don't think using banks as the primary setting for 4.1. is necessary and is a bit distracting from the general scenario.
CW: Rephased the first paragraph of 4.1 in generic terms, similar 4.2 and 4.3. Removed “bank”/”banker” from the paragraph and the figure.

* Requirements: It seems to me that these should be based on principles, not on scenarios. I think the scenarios have helped to highlight to the reader what is possible, but you are deriving requirements from what might appear to the reader to be an arbitrary set of examples.
CW: The authors were trying to derive those potential requirement according to application scenarios and "quantum internet six stages [Wehner]" (described in original Section 5.1, now paragraphs between 5 and 5.1). But the original sentence in Section 5 did not clearly state that. We rephased that sentence in Section 5 to the following:
>>>Some general and functional requirements on the Quantum Internet from the networking perspective, based on the above application scenarios and Quantum Internet technology road [Wehner], are identified and described in next sections. <<<

* Requirements: This is the only place where the idea of "entanglement swapping" is used. It does not appear in the scenarios. Though you have defined it, without having referred to it in the scenarios (upon which the requirements are based) it is unclear how this process fits into the QI.
CW: Good point! Add the following sentence to the definition of "Entanglement Swapping":
>>>Entanglement swapping essentially realizes entanglement distribution (i.e., two nodes in distance can share a Bell pair).<<<

Also, added following sentence when "entanglement distribution" was first mentioned (i.e., in 4.1):
>>>Entanglement swapping can be leveraged to realize entanglement distribution. <<<

The term “entanglement distribution" were mentioned several times in use cases

* Requirements: How does a quantum end node send additional information about individual qubits-- it is unclear the mechanism here in the scenarios or elsewhere. Does it simply create classical packets? Again, a concept not present in your scenarios.
CW: -> Good question! The following sentence was added to that requirement (now in 5.3).
>>>Examples of such additional information include qubit measurements in secure communication setup Section 4.1, and Bell measurements in distributed quantum computing Section 4.3.<<<
Readability:

* introduction 4th para, suggest changing this sentence to, “The process of integrating the Quantum Internet with the Classical Internet is similar to the process of introducing any new communication and networking paradigm into the existing Internet, but with more profound implications.”
* and suggest a carriage return following the same sentence.
CW: Rephrased that sentence as suggested. Also start a new paragraph right after that sentence.

* terminology: perhaps where there are classical and quantum concept parallels to mention or reference the other in both directions. For example Bit (needs reference to qubit) and Qubit.
CW: -> Added the following two sentences, respectively, to the definition of "Bit" and "Classical Internet"
>>> Bit is used in Classical Internet where the state of a bit is deterministic. In contrast, Qubit is used in Quantum Internet where the state of a qubit is uncertain before it is measured. <<<
>>> Classical Internet is a network of classical network nodes which do not support quantum information technology. In contrast, Quantum Internet consists of quantum nodes based on quantum information technology. <<<

* applications: you could use the overview section as the first paragraph to avoid a stacked head, and then also remove the second section, with only the three subsections remaining. It will simplify the TOC.
CW: Good suggestion! Made the changes as suggested.

* requirements: section five is similar, you can simplify the sections by removing the background subsection and simply turn the numbered list into short subsections. Easier for the reader to see the important things in the toc.
CW: Good suggestion again! Re-created 4 subsections (each corresponds to a requirement) as suggested: 5.1. Operations on Entangled Qubits; 5.2. Entanglement Distribution; 5.3. The Need for Classical Channels; and 5.4. Quantum Internet Management.

* conclusion 1st para, suggest removing the two instances of “natural/ly”. It’s not a significant qualifier.
CW: Removed both words as suggested.

Thanks,
-Mallory


On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 08:19, Colin Perkins <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

> IRSG members,
>
> The QIRG Research Group has requested that
> draft-irtf-qirg-quantum-internet-use-cases be considered for publication as
> an IRTF RFC. To progress this draft, we now need at least one IRSG member
> to volunteer to provide a detailed review of the draft, as follows:
>
> > The purpose of the IRSG review is to ensure consistent editorial and
> technical quality for IRTF publications. IRSG review is not a deep
> technical review. (This should take place within the RG.) At least one IRSG
> member other than the chair of the RG bringing the work forth must review
> the document and the RG’s editorial process.
> >
> > IRSG reviewers should look for clear, cogent, and consistent writing. An
> important aspect of the review is to gain a critical reading from reviewers
> who are not subject matter experts and, in the process, assure the document
> will be accessible to those beyond the authoring research group. Also,
> reviewers should assess whether sufficient editorial and technical review
> has been conducted and the requirements for publication described in RFC
> 5743 have been met. Finally, reviewers should check that appropriate
> citations to related research literature have been made.
> >
> > Reviews should be written to be public. Review comments should be sent
> to the IRSG and RG mailing lists and entered into the tracker. All IRSG
> review comments must be addressed. However, the RG need not accept every
> comment. It is the responsibility of the shepherd to understand the
> comments and ensure that the RG considers them including adequate dialog
> between the reviewer and the author and/or RG. Reviews and their resolution
> should be entered into the tracker by the document shepherd.
> >
> > The IRSG review often results in the document being revised. Once the
> reviewer(s), authors, and shepherd have converged on review comments, the
> shepherd starts the IRSG Poll on whether the document should be published.
>
> Please respond to this message if you’re able to perform such a review, and
> indicate the approximate time-frame by which you’ll be able to complete it.
> The document shepherd write-up is available at
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-qirg-quantum-internet-use-cases/shepherdwriteup/
>
> Thanks!
> Colin
>
>

_______________________________________________
Qirg mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/qirg<https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/qirg>