Internet DRAFT - draft-lopez-qirg-qi-multiplane-arch
draft-lopez-qirg-qi-multiplane-arch
Quantum Internet Research Group D. Lopez
Internet-Draft Telefonica
Intended status: Informational V. Martin
Expires: 5 September 2024 UPM
B. Lopez
IMDEA Networks
L. M. Contreras
Telefonica
4 March 2024
A Multiplane Architecture Proposal for the Quantum Internet
draft-lopez-qirg-qi-multiplane-arch-01
Abstract
A consistent reference architecture model for the Quantum Internet is
required to progress in its evolution, providing a framework for the
integration of the protocols applicable to it, and enabling the
advance of the applications based on it. This model has to satisfy
three essential requirements: agility, so it is able to adapt to the
evolution of quantum communications base technologies,
sustainability, with open availability in technological and
economical terms, and pliability, being able to integrate with the
operations and management procedures in current networks. This
document proposes such an architecture framework, with the goal of
providing a conceptual common framework for the integration of
technologies intended to build the Quantum Internet infrastructure
and its integration with the current Internet. The framework is
based on the already extensive experience in the deployment of QKD
network infrastructures and on related initiatives focused on the
integration of network infrastructures and services.
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://dr2lopez.github.io/qi-multiplane-arch/draft-lopez-qirg-qi-
multiplane-arch.html. Status information for this document may be
found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lopez-qirg-qi-
multiplane-arch/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the Quantum Internet
Research Group Research Group mailing list (mailto:qirg@irtf.org),
which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/qirg/.
Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/qirg/.
Lopez, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft qi-multiplane-arch March 2024
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/dr2lopez/qi-multiplane-arch.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 5 September 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Base Technologies: QKD Experience and Evolved SDN Concepts . 4
3.1. A QKD Multi-Plane Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Interfacing with Classical Networks . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. CLAS and Quantum Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. A Framework Architecture for the Quantum Internet . . . . . . 8
4.1. Strata for Quantum Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Identification of Interfaces and Protocols . . . . . . . 12
4.2.1. The Role of Synthetic Environments . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Lopez, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft qi-multiplane-arch March 2024
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
As another case of the "classical vs quantum" apparent
contradictions, the nature of quantum communications [QTTI21],
associated with natural physical effects that require a specific
infrastructure to be used for communications, poses a significant
challenge in the definition of any network reference architecture to
be used for such communications. Nevertheless, the growing interest
on quantum networking, its applications, and the eventual
availability of a Quantum Internet, require of consensus on an
architecture framework able to support the definition and evolution
of different protocols and interfaces.
Several steps have been taken in this direction, including the
identification of architectural principles and base technologies made
in [RFC9340], the description of relevant use cases [QUCS], and
specific approaches to layered models for Quantum Networking,
summarized and discussed in [QIPS22]. While the principles provide
an extremely valuable common ground for further collaboration among
quantum and network practitioners, they are not intended to provide
the solid framework required for progressing in the definition of
specific protocols and other interfaces for common network management
tasks and interactions with user applications. On the other hand,
the proposals made for a layered approach provide interesting
insights on requirements and potential mechanisms to structure
quantum communications, but, first, they do not include essential
aspects for a network at scale and, second and most important, they
do not take into account the need for direct interactions beyond the
layered structure, such as those between classical and quantum
networking services, between applications and the quantum network,
etc.
In parallel, the operational experience with the first kind of
infrastructures using quantum communication technologies to provide
an actual network service, those focused on Quantum Key Distribution
(QKD), has allowed practitioners to explore the solution space and
identify design patterns that seem applicable to the general case of
a Quantum Internet. A corpus of architectural proposals [Y3802],
experimental deployments [MADQCI23] and pilot infrastructures
[EUROQCI] have become available in the recent years, and can be used
to derive useful conclusions, especially if combined with recent
proposals in network architecture [RFC8597], intended to address the
complexity of management and integration at scale beyond the basic
layered constructs supporting connectivity.
Lopez, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft qi-multiplane-arch March 2024
This document proposes a multi-plane reference architecture for the
Quantum Internet, derived from available proposals and the
operational experience with QKD infrastructure. The proposal
attempts to define a framework with three essential properties to
guarantee a seamless evolution of the technology, and the
consolidation of applications and management practices:
* Agility: Provide abstractions able to incorporate new protocols
and interfaces as the technology evolves, avoiding a tight
coupling with specific physical technologies.
* Sustainability: Considering it at all levels and in full scale,
especially regarding environmental and social impacts, including
open availability in technological and economical terms, and
fostering infrastructure reuse.
* Pliability: Facilitate the seamless integration of classical and
quantum network operational procedures, applying and adapting best
practices in use by the Internet community.
And trying to address three essential characteristics already
identified in [PSQN22]:
* Universality, so a quantum network can accommodate any
application.
* Transparency, so quantum networks can share physical media with
classical networks.
* Scalability, so quantum networking protocols can support the
growth of the network.
2. Conventions and Definitions
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. Base Technologies: QKD Experience and Evolved SDN Concepts
The design and deployment of QKD infrastructures has followed a
number of design principles, based on the best practices in network
architecture and management established during the lifetime of the
Internet (and even before), and focused on the separation of
concerns, that have been converging on the trends around open
disaggregation strategies, and the identification of separate data
Lopez, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft qi-multiplane-arch March 2024
and control planes, connected by means of open interfaces.
In what relates to the evolution of SDN concepts, the Cooperating
Layered Architecture for Software-Defined Networking (CLAS) [RFC8597]
described a SDN architecture structured in two different strata,
namely Service Stratum and Transport Stratum. On one hand, the
Service Stratum contains the functions related to the provision of
services and the capabilities offered to external applications. On
the other hand, the Transport Stratum comprises the functions focused
on the transfer of data between the communication endpoints, e.g.,
between end-user devices, between two service gateways, etc.
3.1. A QKD Multi-Plane Architecture
Applying the SDN and disaggregation principles, QKD infrastructures
have been essentially structured around three different planes
[QTTI21]. While we are not talking about a rigid, layered structure,
where a given layer can only provide services to the immediate upper
layer and consume services from the immediate lower layer, it is
worth noting that interactions among elements in the different planes
must use well-defined interfaces [ETSI04] [ETSI14] [ETSI15] [ETSI18],
and these interactions may incorporate a layered approach.
In this approach, the Quantum Forwarding Plane (QFP) is in charge of
performing the operations (quantum and classical) to ensure the
forwarding of the quantum signals or enable the utilization of
persistent quantum resources, like persistent, distributed
entanglement. In QKD, the QFP encapsulates all the functionality
required to obtain an end-to-end secret key across the network. This
implies the transmission of the quantum signals and the execution of
any associated protocols. Note this would require the use of
classical procedures, either via a separated physical "classical
channel" [QTTI21] or the reuse of a common channel, as proposed in
"packet-oriented" approaches [PSQN22]. In this sense, the forwarding
of the keys at intermediate nodes in the multi-hop chains used to
overcome current limitations in propagation of quantum signals or
states, has to be considered part of the QFP, since it is done
exclusively on behalf of the QKD functionality.
On its side, the Service Overlay Plane (SOP) supports the use of the
keys derived from the QFP by applications. This includes the
storage, identification, delivery, and lifecycle management of the
units of consumption (keys of different length, delivered according
to specific patterns) at the endpoints of the network. All network
functionalities at this plane can be considered application-oriented,
with a clear mapping to an overlay data plane in a classical network,
though the SOP elements should be aware of the nature and specific
needs of the QFP they interact with. Key management mechanisms,
Lopez, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft qi-multiplane-arch March 2024
beyond key forwarding by intermediate nodes, fit within the SOP.
This comprises methods such as hybridization and augmentation
techniques, or the means for synchronizing key identifiers across API
boundaries.
Finally, the Control and Management Plane (CMP) is made of the
elements that create and supervise the state of the network. This
decoupling between network configuration and (general) data
forwarding is supported by the controller, a mediation logically
centralized element between the control capabilities supported by the
elements in the QFP and SOP and the management and control functions.
These management and control applications rely on the controller,
taking advantage of the centralization it provides, to guarantee the
best performance of the network and avoid diverging local control
decisions that might lead to sub-optimal configurations.
It is worth noting this management centralization does not contradict
the distributed principles generally applied in current networks.
Local control decisions are intended to be coordinated by centralized
management. While the communication between the controller and the
controlled elements relies on some kind of SDN protocol, the
controller exposes a consistent abstract model of the network devices
and topology, that can be structured in a hierarchy of abstractions,
from lower-level, element-focused ones, up to application-oriented
ones.
In summary, QKD infrastructures are converging into an extended SDN
model, with two differentiated data planes, controlled in a
coordinated manner through a common Control and Management Plane,
that supports aggregated mechanisms for further orchestration. The
QFP/SOP duality constitutes a common abstract foundation for a
general approach to quantum communications networks, regardless of
their final purpose.
3.2. Interfacing with Classical Networks
The interface of QKD infrastructures with classical networks
(commonly identified as OTN, Optical Transport Networks) has been
based on three basic principles, related to the ones we mentioned
above: facilitate the reuse of physical infrastructure
(sustainability and transparency), apply the abstractions commonly
used in open and disaggregated networks (agility and universality),
and reuse the best practices in network management being applied in
current infrastructures (pliability and scalability). We can
classify the interface mechanisms according to the level at which
they occur.
Lopez, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft qi-multiplane-arch March 2024
At the application level, end-to-end key management and end-to-end
key creation are obviously the main target. Since many applications
of these keys are related to classical communications (direct
encryption, key derivation for symmetric algorithms, peer identity…)
there is a clear interface for the SOP, with classical network
functions acting as consumers of the keys or, in general terms, the
bit streams generated by the QFP. Further on, the application of NFV
mechanisms to any network function allows for its implementation
through software virtualization techniques (virtual machines, para-
virtualization containers, unikernels, etc.), irrespectively of their
application environments or specific plane. The lifecycle management
of all network functions, of any nature, under a common MANO stack
[NFV06], seems the most reasonable option.
At the control and management level, the distinct nature of network
elements and the mediation nature of the controller role do not make
advisable the use of common quantum/OTN controllers, but there are
common abstractions able to support cross-interactions among
controllers and management applications, especially regarding:
* Quantum management applications requiring operations on topologies
and physical paths in the OTN mediated by an OTN controller.
* OTN management applications requiring operation on quantum
topologies mediated by the quantum controller.
* Topology updates exchanged between quantum and OTN controllers.
* The coordination through an integrated controller (commonly
referred as "orchestrator"), able to provide a common view to
application network functions.
At the forwarding level, there is a radical difference between the
network elements in quantum networks and OTN, and therefore
interactions in data forwarding are not feasible, with only two
exceptions: the possibility of sharing physical media, and the use of
classical channels to support QKD algorithms, as it is the case of
distillation channels in protocols like BB84. In this case, a proper
control of the path and physical parameters has to be applied to
minimize interferences of any nature and guarantee OTN connectivity
for the quantum algorithms.
Lopez, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft qi-multiplane-arch March 2024
3.3. CLAS and Quantum Networks
As discussed above, SDN principles have enabled the base abstractions
for the conceptualization of QKD infrastructures, including the
services they provide and the required interactions in the use of
classical infrastructure to support the required connectivity
patterns. The original CLAS archiecture, as defined by [RFC8597],
addresses SDN evolution considering the forwarding (transport) and
service aspects in two separated but coordinated planes. This
approach matches the multi-plane approach described for QKD
infeastructures, though it seems somehow limited to address the
required interactions with physical connectivity, as well as to
incorporate general requirements regarding automation to support
convergence with operational practices.
The new extension of the CLAS architecture, as defined in
[CLASEVO], intends to address the current evolution of networks and
the services they support introducing new aspects, in particular the
considerations of distributed computing capabilities attached to
different points in the network, and the introduction of evidence-
driven techniques, such as Analytics, Artificial Intelligence (AI)
and Machine Learning (ML) to improve operations by means of closed-
loop automation.
The CLAS framework provides a sound foundation for incorporating the
experience gained with QKD deployments in a general proposal
applicable to the Quantum Internet, as it is essentially compatible
with the architectural lessons learned within the QKD fields, and at
the same time supports additional degrees of freedom regarding the
integration of control mechanisms, and the interplay with the
(shared) infrastructure and its management.
4. A Framework Architecture for the Quantum Internet
Based on the available experience on the deployment of existing QKD
infrastructures and on the evolution of SDN-enabled architectures
described in the previous section, this document proposes an
architecture framework intended to offer a conceptual common
framework for the integration of technologies intended to build the
Quantum Internet infrastructure and its integration with the current
Internet.
Once we presented in the previous section the lessons learned from
QKD deployments, introducing a general architecture applicable to
those deployments, in this section we propose the generalization of
such architecture towards a Quantum Internet, augmented by the
extended SDN approach proposed by the evolved CLAS in [CLASEVO]. In
what follows,we will discuss how this framework architecure would
Lopez, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft qi-multiplane-arch March 2024
support the required properties: agility, allowing for technology
evolution, sustainability, fostering infrastructure reuse, and
pliability, supporting operational best practices.
Furthermore, we propose here a general network architecture trying to
incorporate relevant trends such as cloud nativeness, the integration
of zero-touch management, or the considerations about intent. With
this in mind, in what follows a CLAS-based architecture frameworks
for quantum communications networks is introduced, including the
proposed strata and their main characteristics.
4.1. Strata for Quantum Networks
The CLAS architecture was initially conceived from the perspective of
exploiting the advantages of network programmability in operational
networks, complementing and going beyond the traditional layered
structured of the original SDN proposal. Following the CLAS
philosophy, as proposed in its recent update [CLASEVO] of decoupling
services, additional functionality, and base connectivity, the
architecture of a quantum network should be composed of:
* A Service Stratum, dealing with the functionality related to the
purpose of the quantum network, and aligned with SOP described for
QKD networks above. At this moment, the most general service,
beyond QKD key management, is obviously entanglement distribution
in a general quantum network. Others can be considered, as time
synchronization, identity assurance or sensing. The service
stratum would consider the relevant service units (keys, shared
states, identities, timelines...), deal with their appropriate
forwarding and routing, and deliver these service units as
requested by the user application functions.
* A Quantum Forwarding Stratum, in charge of the direct application
of quantum protocols and algorithms between the two endpoints of a
quantum link, even when it is a multi-hop one, very much as the
QFP we described as part of QKD deployments.
(TBD: The term "Quantum Forwarding" seems to not gather full
consensus. A proposal for a better term would be welcome!!)
* A Connectivity Stratum, taking care of providing the paths to
support the quantum links used by the quantum forwarding and
service strata. Typically, the connectivity stratum would be
supported by OTN infrastructure, via fiber and/or open-space
links, and would follow a common connectivity paradigm,
specifically a circuit-based or packet-based one. While current
quantum links deal with OTN infrastructure according to a circuit-
based paradigm, recent proposals are addressing the idea of
Lopez, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft qi-multiplane-arch March 2024
"quantum packets" [PSQN22] and the connectivity stratum would have
to deal, in general terms, with the classical headers of such
packets.
This architecture, following the CLAS proposal itself, is built under
the assumption that planes within and across strata communicate
through well-defined, open interfaces supporting programmability, as
a generalization of the common SDN architecture that defines a
controller as a mediator between application and network (forwarding)
devices. It includes the archetypal case of a centralized
controller, but is not limited to that particular realization. These
broader implications of SDN principles are among the main motivation
of the original CLAS proposal in [CLASEVO], and it is the main reason
for using it as the base for the framework proposed by ths document.
Based on the images used to illustrate the strata proposed in
[CLASEVO] and [RFC8597], the relationship among the strata described
above would be as shown in the following diagram:
Application Functions
/\
||
+-------------------------------------||-------------+
| Service Stratum || |
| \/ |
| +--------------+ ........................... |
| | Telemetry Pl.| . SDN Intelligence . |
| | |<===>. . |
| +-----/\-------+ . +--------------+ . |
| || . | Mgmt. Pl. | . |
| || . +--------------+ | . |
| +-----\/-------+ . | Control Pl. |-----+ . |
| | Resource Pl. | . | | . |
| | |<===>. +--------------+ . |
| +--------------+ ........................... |
| /\ /\ |
| || || |
+--------------------------------||-------------||---+
Standard API -- || -- ||
+--------------------------------||-----+ ||
| Quantum Forwarding Stratum || | ||
| \/ | ||
| +----------+ ................... | ||
| | Telemetry| . SDN . | Std. ||
| | Plane |<==>. Intelligence . | API ||
| +-----/\---+ . +----------+ . | -- || --
| || . | Mgmt. Pl.| . | ||
| || . +----------+ | . | ||
Lopez, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft qi-multiplane-arch March 2024
| +-----\/---+ . | Control |-+ . | ||
| | Resource | . | Plane | . | ||
| | Plane |<==>. +----------+ . | ||
| +----------+ ................... | ||
+----------------------------------/\---+ ||
Standard API -- || -- ||
+-------------------||-----------||-----+
| Connectivity || || |
| Stratum || || |
| \/ \/ |
| +----------+ ................... |
| | Telemetry| . SDN . |
| | Plane |<==>. Intelligence . |
| +-----/\---+ . +----------+ . |
| || . | Mgmt. Pl.| . |
| || . +----------+ | . |
| +-----\/---+ . | Control |-+ . |
| | Resource | . | Plane | . |
| | Plane |<==>. +----------+ . |
| +----------+ ................... |
+---------------------------------------+
Essentially, this architecture model incorporates the findings from
QKD deployments, and addresses the requirements for providing a
general framework for quantum networks towards the Quantum Internet.
It is intended to support the evolution of network base technologies,
provide the degrees of freedom necessary to encompass different
deployment models, and align with relevant trends in network
operation, while considering the practical aspects related to
classical connectivity.
The proposed architecture will address the evolution of network base
technologies by providing abstractions able to accommodate to this
evolution. Considering the stages analyzed in [QIROAD18], the QKD
deployment patterns described in the previous section already cover
"Trusted Repeater Networks" and "Prepare and Measure Networks", and
the general architecture proposed here is able to accommodate the
more evolved stages, namely "Entanglement Distribution Networks",
"Quantum Memory Networks", "Few Qubit Fault-Tolerant Networks", and
"Quantum Computing Networks". As immediate examples we can consider
the integration of features in the Connectivity Stratum with the
other two strata to support entanglement forwarding among different
locations, or the incorporation of future quantum repeaters into the
Quantum Forwarding Stratum to support more ellaborated behaviors of
the Service Stratum.
Lopez, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft qi-multiplane-arch March 2024
In addition, these network abstractions are intended to provide
specific degrees of freedom for network design and deployment,
through the incorporation of independent resource and control planes
at each stratum. Given the control mechanisms identified as "SDN
intelligence" on the diagram above are able to expose open
interfaces, the approach for coordinating the different strata via
mechanisms like those defined in [ETSI18] is totally feasible, and
different aggregation patterns (multi-stratum, multi-domain...) and
models (federated, hierarchical...) can be applied. These
aggregation mechanisms are equally applicable in the case of
telemetry data and their integration with closed-loop mechanisms for
automation, in support of the required quantum network agility.
The evolved CLAS proposal in [CLASEVO] explicitly incorporates
current trends in network automation, in whatever the flavor
including AI and intent expressions. This architecture guarantees
the future pliability of quantum networks, in alignment with the
evolution of best practices in general network management.
Finally, by explicitly addressing the issues related to the
connectivity of quantum links, the architecture considers the
interactionis with any other relevant oparational aspects required
for providing quantum network services. The direct integration of a
stratum focused on this aspects makes the proposed architecture
better aligned with the sustainability goal.
4.2. Identification of Interfaces and Protocols
This section, TBP once there is agreement on the architecture
framework, will include a discussion on the applicable and foreseen
protocols and interfaces to be used for intra-stratum (SDN and
telemetry, essentially) and inter-stratum (APIs and models
applicable) interactions, as well as the capability exposure
mechanisms to support the aggregation mechanisms mentioned above.
4.2.1. The Role of Synthetic Environments
Due to the early stage of many, if not all, quantum technologies,
experimenting with quantum devices and equipment can be seriously
hindered by high costs and limited availabilty. This is especially
true for experimentation at the scale required to validate network
protocolos and inter- and intra-strata interfaces. In this context,
it becomes appropriate the use of synthetic testbeds where it is
feasible to emulate the deployment of quantum networks, thus enabling
the execution of experiments and trials, where even potential network
attacks can be analyzed without compromising the integrity of an
already built quantum network or a signinficant number of physical
devices. Based on the results introduced in [QKNDT24] for QKD
Lopez, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft qi-multiplane-arch March 2024
networks, a characterization of such Quantum Network Digital Twin
(QNDT) will support a better understanding of the properties of the
different interfaces and protocols, and the applicability of the
architecture proposed in this document.
A more detailed description of the features of a generalized QNDT,
based on [QKNDT24] findings and the principles of the architecture
described in this document is being produced, and will be integrated
in a future version.
5. Security Considerations
This section is TBP in detail, as the identification of interfaces
and protocols progresses. The general considerations made in
[RFC8597] apply, as well as an elaboration on the following points
regarding:
* The requirements on mutual authentication in the channels used for
quantum interactions, as they should require methods rooted at
physical properties.
* Specific physical attacks related to the particular quantum
mechanisms in use by the quantum forwarding stratum.
* The interaction of these physical attacks with classical attacks
to the control and monitoring activities, possibly translating
into a threat surface augmentation.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8597] Contreras, LM., Bernardos, CJ., Lopez, D., Boucadair, M.,
and P. Iovanna, "Cooperating Layered Architecture for
Software-Defined Networking (CLAS)", RFC 8597,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8597, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8597>.
6.2. Informative References
Lopez, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft qi-multiplane-arch March 2024
[CLASEVO] Contreras, L. M., Boucadair, M., Lopez, D., and C. J.
Bernardos, "An Evolution of Cooperating Layered
Architecture for SDN (CLAS) for Compute and Data
Awareness", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
contreras-coinrg-clas-evolution-02, 23 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-contreras-
coinrg-clas-evolution-02>.
[ETSI04] "ETSI GS QKD 004: Quantum Key Distribution (QKD);
Application Interface", August 2020,
<https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/
QKD/001_099/004/02.01.01_60/gs_QKD004v020101p.pdf>.
[ETSI14] "ETSI GS QKD 014: Quantum Key Distribution (QKD); Protocol
and data format of REST-based key delivery API", February
2019, <https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/
QKD/001_099/014/01.01.01_60/gs_qkd014v010101p.pdf>.
[ETSI15] "ETSI GS QKD 015: Quantum Key Distribution (QKD); Control
Interface for Software Defined Networks", April 2022,
<https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/
QKD/001_099/015/02.01.01_60/gs_QKD015v020101p.pdf>.
[ETSI18] "ETSI GS QKD 018: Quantum Key Distribution (QKD);
Orchestration Interface for Software Defined Networks",
April 2022, <https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/
QKD/001_099/018/01.01.01_60/gs_QKD018v010101p.pdf>.
[EUROQCI] "The European Quantum Communication Infrastructure
(EuroQCI) Initiative", September 2023, <https://digital-
strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/european-quantum-
communication-infrastructure-euroqci>.
[MADQCI23] Martin, V., Brito, J. P., Ortíz, L., Brito-Méndez, R.,
Vicente, R., Saez-Buruaga, J., Sebastian, A. J., Aguado,
D. G., García-Cid, M. I., Setien, J., Salas, P.,
Escribano, C., Dopazo, E., Rivas-Moscoso, J., Pastor-
Perales, A., and D. Lopez, "The Madrid Testbed: QKD SDN
Control and Key Management in a Production Network", July
2023, <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10207295>.
[NFV06] "ETSI GS NFV 006: Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV)
Release 4; Management and Orchestration; Architectural
Framework Specification", December 2022,
<https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/
NFV/001_099/006/04.04.01_60/gs_NFV006v040401p.pdf>.
Lopez, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft qi-multiplane-arch March 2024
[PSQN22] DiAdamo, S., Qi, B., Miller, G., Kompella, R., and A.
Shabani, "Packet switching in quantum networks: A path to
the quantum Internet", October 2022,
<https://journals.aps.org/prresearch/abstract/10.1103/
PhysRevResearch.4.043064>.
[QIPS22] Illiano, J., Caleffia, M., Manzalini, A., and A. S.
Cacciapuoti, "Quantum Internet Protocol Stack: a
Comprehensive Survey", August 2022,
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/
S1389128622002250>.
[QIROAD18] Wehner, S., Elkouss, D., and R. Hanson, "Quantum internet:
A vision for the road ahead", October 2018,
<https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam9288>.
[QKNDT24] Martin, R., Lopez, B., Vidal, I., Valera, F., and B.
Nogales, "Service for Deploying Digital Twins of QKD
Networks", January 2024,
<https://doi.org/10.3390/app14031018>.
[QTTI21] Martin, V., Brito, J. P., Escribano, C., Menchetti, M.,
White, C., Lord, A., Wissel, F., Gunkel, M., Gavignet, P.,
Genay, N., Moult, O. L., Abellan, C., Manzalini, A.,
Pastor-Perales, A., Lopez, V., and D. Lopez, "Quantum
Technologies in the Telecommunications Industry", July
2021, <https://epjquantumtechnology.springeropen.com/
articles/10.1140/epjqt/s40507-021-00108-9>.
[QUCS] Wang, C., Rahman, A., Li, R., Aelmans, M., and K.
Chakraborty, "Application Scenarios for the Quantum
Internet", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-irtf-
qirg-quantum-internet-use-cases-19, 16 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-qirg-
quantum-internet-use-cases-19>.
[RFC9340] Kozlowski, W., Wehner, S., Van Meter, R., Rijsman, B.,
Cacciapuoti, A. S., Caleffi, M., and S. Nagayama,
"Architectural Principles for a Quantum Internet",
RFC 9340, DOI 10.17487/RFC9340, March 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9340>.
[Y3802] "ITU-T Recommendation Y.3802: Quantum key distribution
networks. Functional architecture", April 2021,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.3802>.
Lopez, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft qi-multiplane-arch March 2024
Acknowledgments
This document is based on work partially funded by the EU Horizon
Europe project QSNP (grant 101114043), the Spanish UNICO project
OPENSEC (grant TSI-063000-2021-60), and the MadridQuantum–CM project
(funded by the EU, NextGenerationEU, grant PRTR-C17.I1, and by the
Comunidad de Madrid, Programa de Acciones Complementarias).
Authors' Addresses
Diego Lopez
Telefonica
Email: diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com
Vicente Martin
UPM
Email: vicente.martin@upm.es
Blanca Lopez
IMDEA Networks
Email: blanca.lopez@imdea.org
Luis M. Contreras
Telefonica
Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com
Lopez, et al. Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 16]
