PEM file format for ECH
draft-farrell-tls-pemesni-13
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual in sec area) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Stephen Farrell | ||
| Last updated | 2026-01-29 (Latest revision 2026-01-23) | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART IETF Last Call review
(of
-11)
by Linda Dunbar
Ready w/issues
DNSDIR IETF Last Call review
(of
-11)
by Jim Reid
Ready w/issues
|
||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | Sean Turner | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2025-12-04 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC Ed Queue | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Paul Wouters | ||
| Send notices to | sean+ietf@sn3rd.com | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | No IANA Actions | ||
| RFC Editor | RFC Editor state | EDIT | |
| Details |
draft-farrell-tls-pemesni-13
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Farrell
Internet-Draft Trinity College Dublin
Intended status: Standards Track 23 January 2026
Expires: 27 July 2026
PEM file format for ECH
draft-farrell-tls-pemesni-13
Abstract
Encrypted ClientHello (ECH) key pairs need to be configured into TLS
servers, which can be built using different TLS libraries. This
document specifies a file format to use, similar to how RFC 7468
defines other PEM file formats.
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 27 July 2026.
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. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Farrell Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PEM file format for ECH January 2026
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. ECHConfig file . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Appendix A. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
Encrypted ClientHello (ECH) [I-D.ietf-tls-esni] for TLS1.3 [RFC8446]
defines a confidentiality mechanism for server names and other
ClientHello content in TLS. That requires publication of an
ECHConfigList data structure in an HTTPS or SVCB RR [RFC9460] in the
DNS. An ECHConfigList can contain one or more ECHConfig values. An
ECHConfig structure contains the public component of a key pair that
will typically be periodically (re-)generated by some key manager for
a TLS server. TLS servers then need to be configured to use these
key pairs, and given that various TLS servers can be built with
different TLS libraries, there is a benefit in having a standard
format for ECH key pairs and configs, just as was done with
[RFC7468].
2. Terminology
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. ECHConfig file
A PEM ECH file contains zero or one private key and one encoded
ECHConfigList.
The public and private keys MUST both be PEM encoded [RFC7468]. The
file contains the concatenation of the PEM encoding of the private
key (if present) followed by the PEM encoding of the public key(s) as
an ECHConfigList. When a private key is present, the ECHConfigList
MUST contain an ECHConfig that matches the private key. The private
key MUST be encoded as a PKCS#8 PrivateKey [RFC7468]. The public
Farrell Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PEM file format for ECH January 2026
key(s) MUST be the base64 encoded (see Section 4 of [RFC4648]) form
of an ECHConfigList value that can be published in the DNS using an
HTTPS RR as described in [I-D.ietf-tls-svcb-ech]. The string
"ECHCONFIG" MUST be used in the PEM file delimiter for the public
key.
Any content after the PEM encoded ECHConfigList SHOULD be ignored.
Figure 1 shows an example ECHConfig PEM File
-----BEGIN PRIVATE KEY-----
MC4CAQAwBQYDK2VuBCIEICjd4yGRdsoP9gU7YT7My8DHx1Tjme8GYDXrOMCi8v1V
-----END PRIVATE KEY-----
-----BEGIN ECHCONFIG-----
AD7+DQA65wAgACA8wVN2BtscOl3vQheUzHeIkVmKIiydUhDCliA4iyQRCwAEAAEA
AQALZXhhbXBsZS5jb20AAA==
-----END ECHCONFIG-----
Figure 1: Example ECHConfig PEM file
If the above ECHConfigList were published in the DNS for
foo.example.com, then one could access that as shown in Figure 2.
$ dig +short HTTPS foo.example.com
1 . ech=AD7+DQA65wAgACA8wVN2BtscOl3vQheUzHeIkVmKIiydUhDCliA4iyQR
wAEAAEAAQALZXhhbXBsZS5jb20AAA==
Figure 2: Use of dig to get the ECHConfigList from DNS
TLS servers using this file format might configure multiple file
names as part of their overall configuration, if, for example, only
the ECHConfigList values from a subset of those files are to be used
as the value for retry_configs in the ECH fallback scenario.
The ECHConfigList in a PEM file might contain more than one ECHConfig
if, for example, those ECHConfig values contain different extensions
or different public_name values. Consistent with
[I-D.ietf-tls-esni], the ECHConfig values within an ECHConfigList
appear in decreasing order of preference. If the ECHConfigList value
is to be used as the retry_configs value, then that might contain
different public keys. (Nonetheless, when a private key is present,
that MUST match the public key from one of the ECHConfig values.)
Farrell Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PEM file format for ECH January 2026
4. Security Considerations
Storing cryptographic keys in files leaves them vulnerable should
anyone get read access to the filesystem on which they are stored.
The same protection mechanisms that would be used for a server's PEM
encoded HTTPS certificate private key should be used for the PEM ECH
configuration.
The security considerations of [I-D.ietf-tls-svcb-ech] apply when
retrieving an ECHConfigList from the DNS.
For clarity, only the ECHConfigList is to be published in the DNS -
the private key from an ECH PEM file MUST NOT be published in the
DNS.
5. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Daniel McCarney, Jim Reid and Peter Yee for comments.
6. IANA Considerations
This document contains no IANA considerations.
7. References
7.1. 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/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.
[RFC7468] Josefsson, S. and S. Leonard, "Textual Encodings of PKIX,
PKCS, and CMS Structures", RFC 7468, DOI 10.17487/RFC7468,
April 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7468>.
[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/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
Farrell Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PEM file format for ECH January 2026
[I-D.ietf-tls-esni]
Rescorla, E., Oku, K., Sullivan, N., and C. A. Wood, "TLS
Encrypted Client Hello", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-tls-esni-25, 14 June 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
esni-25>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC9460] Schwartz, B., Bishop, M., and E. Nygren, "Service Binding
and Parameter Specification via the DNS (SVCB and HTTPS
Resource Records)", RFC 9460, DOI 10.17487/RFC9460,
November 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9460>.
[I-D.ietf-tls-svcb-ech]
Schwartz, B. M., Bishop, M., and E. Nygren, "Bootstrapping
TLS Encrypted ClientHello with DNS Service Bindings", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech-08,
16 June 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech-08>.
Appendix A. Changes
From -12 to -13:
* Changes resulting from IESG review.
From -11 to -12:
* Changes resulting from IETF last call reviews.
From -10 to -11:
* Change to standards track as agreed with shepherd/AD.
From -09 to -10:
* Tweaks to fit being AD sponsored.
From -08 to -09:
* Minor clarification of encoding based on current OpenSSL ECH
feature branch code.
From -07 to -08:
* Processed some github comments
Farrell Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PEM file format for ECH January 2026
From -06 to -07:
* Refresh due to expiry.
From -05 to -06:
* Refresh due to expiry.
From -04 to -05:
* Refresh due to expiry.
From -03 to -04:
* Refresh due to expiry.
From -02 to -03:
* Refresh due to expiry and not possible ISE destination
From -01 to -02:
* ECHO -> ECH
From -00 to -01:
* ESNI -> ECHO
Author's Address
Stephen Farrell
Trinity College Dublin
Dublin
2
Ireland
Phone: +353-1-896-2354
Email: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
Farrell Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 6]