Appendix 04 · Some Important QKD Protocols
This appendix surveys important QKD protocols and explains how they differ in physical assumptions, implementation requirements, and security models. It covers protocol families such as BB84, decoy-state approaches, entanglement-based protocols, continuous-variable variants, measurement-device-independent QKD, Twin-Field QKD, and device-independent ideas.
The appendix is not limited to abstract protocol names. It connects each family to practical questions: required transmitters and detectors, sensitivity to losses, achievable distances, calibration burden, vulnerability to implementation attacks, and suitability for fiber, free-space, or satellite scenarios. This makes the protocol overview relevant for readers comparing real systems.
A central theme is that stronger theoretical security claims often come with harder implementation requirements. The appendix therefore helps readers understand why vendor systems, field trials, and standardization work may focus on different protocol classes depending on cost, maturity, and operational constraints.
- Introduces major QKD protocol families
- Relates protocols to hardware and channel requirements
- Compares security assumptions and implementation burden
- Explains practical trade-offs in real deployments
- Supports interpretation of vendor and research claims