TLS 1.3 Extension for Using Certificates with an External Pre-Shared Key
draft-ietf-tls-8773bis-04

Network Working Group                                         R. Housley
Internet-Draft                                            Vigil Security
Intended status: Standards Track                        22 February 2025
Expires: 26 August 2025

TLS 1.3 Extension for Using Certificates with an External Pre-Shared Key
                       draft-ietf-tls-8773bis-04

Abstract

   This document specifies a TLS 1.3 extension that allows TLS clients
   and servers to authenticate with certificates and provide
   confidentiality based on encryption with a symmetric key from the
   usual key agreement algorithm and an external pre-shared key (PSK).

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 26 August 2025.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 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.

Housley                  Expires 26 August 2025                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        Certificate with External PSK        February 2025

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Motivation and Design Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Extension Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Certificate with External PSK Extension . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Companion Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  Authentication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.3.  Keying Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Appendix A.  Changes Since RFC 8773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   The TLS 1.3 [RFC8446] handshake protocol provides two mutually
   exclusive forms of server authentication.  First, the server can be
   authenticated by providing a signature certificate and creating a
   valid digital signature to demonstrate that it possesses the
   corresponding private key.  Second, the server can be authenticated
   by demonstrating that it possesses a pre-shared key (PSK) that was
   established by a previous handshake.  A PSK that is established in
   this fashion is called a resumption PSK.  A PSK that is established
   by any other means is called an external PSK.

   A TLS 1.3 server that is authenticating with a certificate may
   optionally request a certificate from the TLS 1.3 client for
   authentication as described in Section 4.3.2 of [RFC8446].

   This document specifies a TLS 1.3 extension permitting certificate-
   based authentication and providing an external PSK to be input to the
   TLS 1.3 key schedule.

   Please see Appendix A for a list of changes since the publication of
   RFC 8773.

Housley                  Expires 26 August 2025                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft        Certificate with External PSK        February 2025

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.  Motivation and Design Rationale

   There are two motivations for using a certificate with an external
   PSK.

   One motivation is confidentiality protection against the future
   invention of a Cryptographically Relevant Quantum Computer (CRQC),
   which would pose a serious challenge for the asymmetric cryptographic
   algorithms that are widely deployed today, including the digital
   signature algorithms that are used to authenticate the server in the
   TLS 1.3 handshake protocol and key agreement algorithm used to
   establish a pairwise shared secret between the client and server.  It
   is an open question whether or not it is feasible to build such a
   quantum computer, and if so, when that might happen.  However, if
   such a quantum computer is invented, many of the cryptographic
   algorithms and the security protocols that use them would become
   vulnerable.  In particular, The TLS 1.3 handshake protocol employs
   key agreement algorithms that could be broken by the invention of a
   CRQC [I-D.hoffman-c2pq].  Including a strong external PSK in the TLS
   1.3 key schedule offers confidentiality protection against the long-
   term quantum computing threat; it requires the attacker to learn the
   external PSK as well as the shared secret produced by the key
   agreement algorithm to break confidentiality.

   When a certificate is used for authentication and a strong external
   PSK is used in conjunction with a key agreement algorithm, which
   maintains the authentication provided by the existing certificate and
   digital signature mechanisms.  This authentication cannot be relied
   upon if a CRQC is ever invented.  Including a strong external PSK in
   the TLS 1.3 key schedule does not offer improved against the long-
   term quantum computing threat regarding authentication.

   Likewise, a raw public key can be provided as described in [RFC7250].

   Quantum-resistant public-key cryptographic algorithms are becoming
   standards, but it will take many years for TLS 1.3 ciphersuites that
   use these algorithms to be developed and deployed.  In some
   environments, deployment of a strong external PSK provides protection
   until these quantum-resistant algorithms are deployed.

Housley                  Expires 26 August 2025                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft        Certificate with External PSK        February 2025

   Another motivation is the use of a public key with a factory-
   provisioned secret value for the initial enrollment of a device in an
   enterprise network [I-D.ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls].

4.  Extension Overview

   This section provides a brief overview of the
   "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension.

   The client includes the "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension in the
   ClientHello message.  The "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension MUST
   be accompanied by the "key_share", "psk_key_exchange_modes", and
   "pre_shared_key" extensions.  The client MAY also find it useful to
   include the "supported_groups" extension.  Since the
   "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension is intended to be used only with
   initial handshakes, it MUST NOT be sent alongside the "early_data"
   extension.  These extensions are all described in Section 4.2 of
   [RFC8446], which also requires the "pre_shared_key" extension to be
   the last extension in the ClientHello message.

   If the client includes both the "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension
   and the "early_data" extension, then the server MUST terminate the
   connection with an "illegal_parameter" alert.

   If the server is willing to use one of the external PSKs listed in
   the "pre_shared_key" extension and perform certificate-based
   authentication, then the server includes the
   "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension in the ServerHello message.  The
   "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension MUST be accompanied by the
   "key_share" and "pre_shared_key" extensions.  If none of the external
   PSKs in the list provided by the client is acceptable to the server,
   then the "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension is omitted from the
   ServerHello message.

   When the "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension is successfully
   negotiated, the TLS 1.3 key schedule processing includes both the
   selected external PSK and the (EC)DHE shared secret value.  (EC)DHE
   refers to Diffie-Hellman over either finite fields or elliptic
   curves.  As a result, the Early Secret, Handshake Secret, and Main
   Secret (previously known as the Master Secret) values all depend upon
   the value of the selected external PSK.  Of course, the Early Secret
   does not depend upon the (EC)DHE shared secret.

   The authentication of the server and optional authentication of the
   client depend upon the ability to generate a signature that can be
   validated with the public key in their certificates.  The
   authentication processing is not changed in any way by the selected
   external PSK.

Housley                  Expires 26 August 2025                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft        Certificate with External PSK        February 2025

   Each external PSK is associated with a single hash algorithm, which
   is required by Section 4.2.11 of [RFC8446].  The hash algorithm MUST
   be set when the PSK is established, with a default of SHA-256.

5.  Certificate with External PSK Extension

   This section specifies the "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension,
   which MAY appear in the ClientHello message and ServerHello message.
   It MUST NOT appear in any other messages.  The
   "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension MUST NOT appear in the
   ServerHello message unless the "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension
   appeared in the preceding ClientHello message.  If an implementation
   recognizes the "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension and receives it
   in any other message, then the implementation MUST abort the
   handshake with an "illegal_parameter" alert.

   The general extension mechanisms enable clients and servers to
   negotiate the use of specific extensions.  Clients request extended
   functionality from servers with the extensions field in the
   ClientHello message.  If the server responds with a HelloRetryRequest
   message, then the client sends another ClientHello message as
   described in Section 4.1.2 of [RFC8446], including the same
   "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension as the original ClientHello
   message, or aborts the handshake.

   Many server extensions are carried in the EncryptedExtensions
   message; however, the "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension is carried
   in the ServerHello message.  Successful negotiation of the
   "pre_shared_key" extension enables certificate verification to take
   place in addition to the inclusion of the external PSK in the key
   schedule.  The external PSK is identified by the "key_share"
   extension, and the inclusion of the external PSK in the key schedule
   affects the key used for encryption.  The "tls_cert_with_extern_psk"
   extension is only present in the ServerHello message if the server
   recognizes the "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension and the server
   possesses one of the external PSKs offered by the client in the
   "pre_shared_key" extension in the ClientHello message.

   The Extension structure is defined in [RFC8446]; it is repeated here
   for convenience.

     struct {
         ExtensionType extension_type;
         opaque extension_data<0..2^16-1>;
     } Extension;

Housley                  Expires 26 August 2025                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft        Certificate with External PSK        February 2025

   The "extension_type" identifies the particular extension type, and
   the "extension_data" contains information specific to the particular
   extension type.

   This document specifies the "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension,
   adding one new type to ExtensionType:

     enum {
         tls_cert_with_extern_psk(33), (65535)
     } ExtensionType;

   The "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension is relevant when the client
   and server possess an external PSK in common that can be used as an
   input to the TLS 1.3 key schedule.  The "tls_cert_with_extern_psk"
   extension is essentially a flag to use the external PSK in the key
   schedule, and it has the following syntax:

     struct {
         select (Handshake.msg_type) {
             case client_hello: Empty;
             case server_hello: Empty;
         };
     } CertWithExternPSK;

5.1.  Companion Extensions

   Section 4 lists the extensions that are required to accompany the
   "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension.  Most of those extensions are
   not impacted in any way by this specification.  However, this section
   discusses the extensions that require additional consideration.

   The "psk_key_exchange_modes" extension is defined in Section 4.2.9 of
   [RFC8446].  The "psk_key_exchange_modes" extension restricts the use
   of both the PSKs offered in this ClientHello and those that the
   server might supply via a subsequent NewSessionTicket.  As a result,
   when the "psk_key_exchange_modes" extension is included in the
   ClientHello message, clients MUST include psk_dhe_ke mode.  In
   addition, clients MAY also include psk_ke mode to support a
   subsequent NewSessionTicket.  When the "psk_key_exchange_modes"
   extension is included in the ClientHello message, servers MUST select
   the psk_dhe_ke mode for the initial handshake.  Servers MUST select a
   key exchange mode that is listed by the client for subsequent
   handshakes that include the resumption PSK from the initial
   handshake.

Housley                  Expires 26 August 2025                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft        Certificate with External PSK        February 2025

   The "pre_shared_key" extension is defined in Section 4.2.11 of
   [RFC8446].  The syntax is repeated below for convenience.  All of the
   listed PSKs MUST be external PSKs.  If a resumption PSK is listed
   along with the "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension, the server MUST
   abort the handshake with an "illegal_parameter" alert.

     struct {
         opaque identity<1..2^16-1>;
         uint32 obfuscated_ticket_age;
     } PskIdentity;

     opaque PskBinderEntry<32..255>;

     struct {
         PskIdentity identities<7..2^16-1>;
         PskBinderEntry binders<33..2^16-1>;
     } OfferedPsks;

     struct {
         select (Handshake.msg_type) {
             case client_hello: OfferedPsks;
             case server_hello: uint16 selected_identity;
         };
     } PreSharedKeyExtension;

   "OfferedPsks" contains the list of PSK identities and associated
   binders for the external PSKs that the client is willing to use with
   the server.

   The identities are a list of external PSK identities that the client
   is willing to negotiate with the server.  Each external PSK has an
   associated identity that is known to the client and the server; the
   associated identities may be known to other parties as well.  In
   addition, the binder validation (see below) confirms that the client
   and server have the same key associated with the identity.

   The "obfuscated_ticket_age" is not used for external PSKs.  As stated
   in Section 4.2.11 of [RFC8446], clients SHOULD set this value to 0,
   and servers MUST ignore the value.

Housley                  Expires 26 August 2025                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft        Certificate with External PSK        February 2025

   The binders are a series of HMAC [RFC2104] values, one for each
   external PSK offered by the client, in the same order as the
   identities list.  The HMAC value is computed using the binder_key,
   which is derived from the external PSK, and a partial transcript of
   the current handshake.  Generation of the binder_key from the
   external PSK is described in Section 7.1 of [RFC8446].  The partial
   transcript of the current handshake includes a partial ClientHello up
   to and including the PreSharedKeyExtension.identities field, as
   described in Section 4.2.11.2 of [RFC8446].

   The "selected_identity" contains the index of the external PSK
   identity that the server selected from the list offered by the
   client.  As described in Section 4.2.11 of [RFC8446], the server MUST
   validate the binder value that corresponds to the selected external
   PSK, and if the binder does not validate, the server MUST abort the
   handshake with an "illegal_parameter" alert.

5.2.  Authentication

   When the "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension is successfully
   negotiated, authentication of the server depends upon the ability to
   generate a signature that can be validated with the public key.  When
   the server uses a certificate, this is accomplished by the server
   sending the Certificate and CertificateVerify messages, as described
   in Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 of [RFC8446].  Alternatively, the server
   can use a raw public key as described in [RFC7250].

   TLS 1.3 does not permit the server to send a CertificateRequest
   message when a PSK is being used.  This restriction is removed when
   the "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension is negotiated, allowing
   certificate-based authentication for both the client and the server.
   If certificate-based client authentication is desired, this is
   accomplished by the client sending the Certificate and
   CertificateVerify messages as described in Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3
   of [RFC8446].

5.3.  Keying Material

   Section 7.1 of [RFC8446] specifies the TLS 1.3 key schedule.  The
   successful negotiation of the "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension
   requires the key schedule processing to include both the external PSK
   and the (EC)DHE shared secret value.

   If the client and the server have different values associated with
   the selected external PSK identifier, then the client and the server
   will compute different values for every entry in the key schedule,
   which will lead to the client aborting the handshake with a
   "decrypt_error" alert.

Housley                  Expires 26 August 2025                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft        Certificate with External PSK        February 2025

6.  IANA Considerations

   Once this document is approved, IANA is asked to update the "TLS
   ExtensionType Values" registry [IANA] entry for the
   "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension to reference this document.

7.  Security Considerations

   The Security Considerations in [RFC8446] remain relevant.

   TLS 1.3 [RFC8446] does not permit the server to send a
   CertificateRequest message when a PSK is being used.  This
   restriction is removed when the "tls_cert_with_extern_psk" extension
   is offered by the client and accepted by the server.  However, TLS
   1.3 does not permit an external PSK to be used in the same fashion as
   a resumption PSK, and this extension preserves that restriction.

   Implementations must protect the external pre-shared key (PSK).
   Compromise of the external PSK will make the encrypted session
   content vulnerable to the future development of a Cryptographically
   Relevant Quantum Computer (CRQC).  However, the generation,
   distribution, and management of the external PSKs is out of scope for
   this specification.

   Implementers should not transmit the same content on a connection
   that is protected with an external PSK and a connection that is not.
   Doing so may allow an eavesdropper to correlate the connections,
   making the content vulnerable to the future invention of a CRQC.

   Implementations must generate external PSKs with a secure key-
   management technique, such as pseudorandom generation of the key or
   derivation of the key from one or more other secure keys.  The use of
   inadequate pseudorandom number generators (PRNGs) to generate
   external PSKs can result in little or no security.  An attacker may
   find it much easier to reproduce the PRNG environment that produced
   the external PSKs and search the resulting small set of
   possibilities, rather than brute-force searching the whole key space.
   The generation of quality random numbers is difficult.  [RFC4086]
   offers important guidance in this area.

   Implementations must use a ciphersuite that includes a symmetric
   encryption algorithm with sufficiently large keys.  For protection
   against the future invention of a CRQC, the symmetric key needs to be
   at least 128 bits.  While Grover’s algorithm (described in
   Section 7.1 of [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqc-engineers]) allows a quantum
   computer to perform a brute force key search using quadratically
   fewer steps than would be required with classical computers, there
   are a number of mitigating factors suggesting that Grover’s algorithm

Housley                  Expires 26 August 2025                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft        Certificate with External PSK        February 2025

   will not speed up brute force symmetric key search as dramatically as
   one might suspect.  First, quantum computing hardware will likely be
   more expensive to build and use than classical hardware.  Second, to
   obtain the full quadratic speedup, all the steps of Grover’s
   algorithm must be performed in series.  However, attacks on
   cryptography use massively parallel processing, the advantage of
   Grover’s algorithm will be smaller.

   Implementations must use sufficiently large external PSKs.  For
   protection against the future invention of a CRQC, the external PSK
   needs to be at least 128 bits.

   Even when the external PSK is not known to any party other than the
   client and the server, then the external PSK MUST NOT be the sole
   basis for authentication.  The reasoning is explained in Section 4.2
   of [K2016].  The authentication of the server and optional
   authentication of the client depend upon the ability to generate a
   signature that can be validated with the public key in their
   certificates.  The authentication processing is not changed in any
   way by the selected external PSK.

   In this extension, the external PSK preserves confidentiality if the
   (EC)DH key agreement is ever broken by cryptanalysis or the future
   invention of a CRQC.  As long as the attacker does not know the PSK
   and the key derivation algorithm remains unbroken, the attacker
   cannot derive the session secrets, even if they are able to compute
   the (EC)DH shared secret.  Should the attacker be able compute the
   (EC)DH shared secret, the forward-secrecy advantages traditionally
   associated with ephemeral (EC)DH keys will no longer be relevant.
   Although the ephemeral private keys used during a given TLS 1.3
   session are destroyed at the end of a session, preventing the
   attacker from later accessing them, these private keys would
   nevertheless be recoverable due to the break in the (EC)DH algorithm.
   However, a more general notion of "secrecy after key material is
   destroyed" would still be achievable using external PSKs, if they are
   managed in a way that ensures their destruction when they are no
   longer needed, and with the assumption that the symmetric algorithms
   that use the external PSKs remain safe against the invention of a
   CRQC.

   TLS 1.3 key derivation makes use of the HMAC-based Key Derivation
   Function (HKDF) algorithm, which depends upon the HMAC [RFC2104]
   construction and a hash function.  This extension provides the
   desired protection for the session secrets, as long as HMAC with the
   selected hash function is a pseudorandom function (PRF) [GGM1986].

Housley                  Expires 26 August 2025                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft        Certificate with External PSK        February 2025

   This specification does not require that the external PSK is known
   only by the client and server.  The external PSK may be known to a
   group.  Since authentication depends on the public key in a
   certificate, knowledge of the external PSK by other parties does not
   enable impersonation.  Since confidentiality depends on the shared
   secret from (EC)DH, knowledge of the external PSK by other parties
   does not enable eavesdropping.  However, group members can record the
   traffic of other members and then decrypt it if they ever gain access
   to a CRQC.  Also, when many parties know the external PSK, there are
   many opportunities for theft of the external PSK by an attacker.
   Once an attacker has the external PSK, they can decrypt stored
   traffic if they ever gain access to a CRQC, in the same manner as a
   legitimate group member.

   TLS 1.3 [RFC8446] takes a conservative approach to PSKs; they are
   bound to a specific hash function and KDF.  By contrast, TLS 1.2
   [RFC5246] allows PSKs to be used with any hash function and the TLS
   1.2 PRF.  Thus, the safest approach is to use a PSK exclusively with
   TLS 1.2 or exclusively with TLS 1.3.  Given one PSK, one can derive a
   PSK for exclusive use with TLS 1.2 and derive another PSK for
   exclusive use with TLS 1.3 using the mechanism specified in
   [RFC9258].

   TLS 1.3 [RFC8446] has received careful security analysis, and the
   following informal reasoning shows that the addition of this
   extension does not introduce any security defects.  This extension
   requires the use of certificates for authentication, but the
   processing of certificates is unchanged by this extension.  This
   extension places an external PSK in the key schedule as part of the
   computation of the Early Secret.  In the initial handshake without
   this extension, the Early Secret is computed as:

      Early Secret = HKDF-Extract(0, 0)

   With this extension, the Early Secret is computed as:

      Early Secret = HKDF-Extract(External PSK, 0)

   Any entropy contributed by the external PSK can only make the Early
   Secret better; the External PSK cannot make it worse.  Thus, TLS 1.3
   continues to meet well-studied security goals when this extension is
   used.

8.  Privacy Considerations

   Appendix E.6 of [RFC8446] discusses identity-exposure attacks on
   PSKs.  Also, Appendix C.4 of [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] discusses
   tracking prevention.  The guidance in these sections remain relevant.

Housley                  Expires 26 August 2025                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft        Certificate with External PSK        February 2025

   If an external PSK identity is used for multiple connections, then an
   observer will generally be able track clients and/or servers across
   connections.  The rotation of the external PSK identity or the use of
   the Encrypted Client Hello extension [I-D.ietf-tls-esni] can mitigate
   this risk.

   This extension makes use of external PSKs to improve resilience
   against attackers that gain access to a CRQC in the future and
   provides authentication for initial enrollment of devices in an
   enterprise network.  This extension is always accompanied by the
   "pre_shared_key" extension to provide the PSK identities in plaintext
   in the ClientHello message.  Passive observation of the these PSK
   identities will aid an attacker in tracking users or devices that
   make use of this extension.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls]
              Friel, O. and D. Harkins, "Bootstrapped TLS Authentication
              with Proof of Knowledge (TLS-POK)", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls-08, 6
              February 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls-08>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7250]  Wouters, P., Ed., Tschofenig, H., Ed., Gilmore, J.,
              Weiler, S., and T. Kivinen, "Using Raw Public Keys in
              Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport
              Layer Security (DTLS)", RFC 7250, DOI 10.17487/RFC7250,
              June 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7250>.

   [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>.

9.2.  Informative References

Housley                  Expires 26 August 2025                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft        Certificate with External PSK        February 2025

   [Err7598]  RFC Editor, "RFC Errata 7598",
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7598>.

   [GGM1986]  Goldreich, O., Goldwasser, S., and S. Micali, "How to
              construct random functions", Journal of the ACM, Vol. 33,
              No. 4, pp. 792-807, DOI 10.1145/6490.6503, August 1986,
              <https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/6490.6503>.

   [I-D.hoffman-c2pq]
              Hoffman, P., "The Transition from Classical to Post-
              Quantum Cryptography", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-hoffman-c2pq-07, 26 May 2020,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hoffman-
              c2pq>.

   [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqc-engineers]
              Banerjee, A., Reddy.K, T., Schoinianakis, D., Hollebeek,
              T., and M. Ounsworth, "Post-Quantum Cryptography for
              Engineers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              pquip-pqc-engineers-09, 13 February 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pquip-
              pqc-engineers-09>.

   [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-23, 19 February 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
              esni-23>.

   [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis]
              Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-tls-rfc8446bis-12, 17 February 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
              rfc8446bis-12>.

   [IANA]     IANA, "TLS ExtensionType Values",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-
              values/tls-extensiontype-values.xhtml>.

   [K2016]    Krawczyk, H., "A Unilateral-to-Mutual Authentication
              Compiler for Key Exchange (with Applications to Client
              Authentication in TLS1.3)", cryptoeprint 2016/711, 1
              September 2016, <https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/711>.

Housley                  Expires 26 August 2025                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft        Certificate with External PSK        February 2025

   [RFC2104]  Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
              Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>.

   [RFC4086]  Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
              "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.

   [RFC9258]  Benjamin, D. and C. A. Wood, "Importing External Pre-
              Shared Keys (PSKs) for TLS 1.3", RFC 9258,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9258, July 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9258>.

Appendix A.  Changes Since RFC 8773

   The status elevation from Experimental RFC to Standards Track RFC is
   the most significant change in this document.

   In addition to minor editorial updates, which include a change to the
   title, the following changes were made:

   *  Expand the motivation discussion to talk about protection against
      the future development of a Cryptographically Relevant Quantum
      Computer (CRQC) and enrollment in enterprise networks.

   *  Separate the discussion of confidentiality and authentication.
      The inclusion of the external PSK offers some confidentiality
      protection against the future invention of a CRQC, but the
      external PSK does not improve authentication.

   *  Correct RFC Errata 7598 [Err7598].

   *  Add a discussion of TLS Encrypted Client Hello to the Privacy
      Considerations.

   *  Adopt terminology that has become widely accepted, such as CRQC
      and Main Secret (instead of Master Secret).

   *  Provide URLs for all references.

Housley                  Expires 26 August 2025                [Page 14]
Internet-Draft        Certificate with External PSK        February 2025

Acknowledgments

   Many thanks to Liliya Akhmetzyanova, Roman Danyliw, Christian
   Huitema, Ben Kaduk, Geoffrey Keating, Hugo Krawczyk, Mirja Kühlewind,
   Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos, Nick Sullivan, Martin Thomson, and Peter Yee
   for their review and comments on the Internet-Drafts that eventually
   became RFC 8773; their efforts have improved the document.

   Many thanks to Dan Harkins, Owen Friel, John Preuß Mattsson,
   Christian Huitema, Joe Salowey, and Britta Hale for their review and
   comments on the updates to RFC 8773 that became this document; their
   efforts have improved the document.

Author's Address

   Russ Housley
   Vigil Security, LLC
   516 Dranesville Road
   Herndon, VA 20170
   United States of America
   Email: housley@vigilsec.com

Housley                  Expires 26 August 2025                [Page 15]