Javascript disabled? Like other modern websites, the IETF Datatracker relies on Javascript. Please enable Javascript for full functionality.

PEM file format for ECH
draft-farrell-tls-pemesni-12

Versions:

00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
RFC 9934

The information below is for an old version of the document.

Document	Type	This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 9934.
	Author	Stephen Farrell
	Last updated	2026-01-22 (Latest revision 2026-01-07)
	RFC stream	Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
	Formats	txt html xml htmlized bibtex bibxml
	Reviews	DNSDIR Telechat review by Jim Reid Ready 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	Became RFC 9934 (Proposed Standard)
	Consensus boilerplate	Yes
	Telechat date	(None) Has enough positions to pass.
	Responsible AD	Paul Wouters
	Send notices to	sean+ietf@sn3rd.com
IANA	IANA review state	IANA OK - No Actions Needed

Email authors IPR References Referenced by Nits Nits v3 Search email archive

draft-farrell-tls-pemesni-12

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        S. Farrell
Internet-Draft                                    Trinity College Dublin
Intended status: Standards Track                          7 January 2026
Expires: 11 July 2026

                        PEM file format for ECH
                      draft-farrell-tls-pemesni-12

Abstract

   Encrypted ClientHello (ECH) key pairs need to be configured into TLS
   servers, which can be built using different TLS libraries, so there
   is a benefit and little cost in documenting a file format to use for
   these key pairs, 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 11 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 11 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   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.  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.  The public key(s) MUST be

Farrell                   Expires 11 July 2026                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft           PEM file format for ECH            January 2026

   the base64 encoded 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.  If the ECHConfigList value is to be
   use 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.)

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.

Farrell                   Expires 11 July 2026                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft           PEM file format for ECH            January 2026

   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>.

   [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>.

   [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

   [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>.

Farrell                   Expires 11 July 2026                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft           PEM file format for ECH            January 2026

   [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 -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

   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:

Farrell                   Expires 11 July 2026                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft           PEM file format for ECH            January 2026

   *  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 11 July 2026                  [Page 6]

PEM file format for ECH draft-farrell-tls-pemesni-12

PEM file format for ECH
draft-farrell-tls-pemesni-12