Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. FarrellInternet-DraftRequest for Comments: 9934 Trinity College DublinIntended status:Category: Standards Track23 January 2026 Expires: 27 JulyFebruary 2026PEM file formatISSN: 2070-1721 Privacy-Enhanced Mail (PEM) File Format forECH draft-farrell-tls-pemesni-13Encrypted ClientHello (ECH) 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 standard file formatto use,for this purpose, similar to how RFC 7468 defines otherPEMPrivacy-Enhanced Mail (PEM) file formats. Status of This Memo ThisInternet-Draftissubmitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documentsan Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The listIt represents the consensus ofcurrent Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents validthe IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved fora maximumpublication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 ofsix monthsRFC 7841. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may beupdated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documentsobtained atany 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.https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9934. 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)(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. Table of Contents 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22. Terminology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23. ECHConfigfile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2File 4. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7.6. References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7.1.6.1. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7.2.6.2. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Appendix A. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Acknowledgements Author's Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61. Introduction Encrypted ClientHello (ECH)[I-D.ietf-tls-esni][RFC9849] 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. ECHConfigfileFile 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 key(s) MUST be thebase64 encodedbase64-encoded form (see Section 4 of [RFC4648])formof an ECHConfigList value that can be published in the DNS using an HTTPS RR as described in[I-D.ietf-tls-svcb-ech].[RFC9848]. 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 PEMfileFile 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 ofdigDig togetGet 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],[RFC9849], 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.) 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'sPEMPEM- encoded HTTPS certificate private key should be used for the PEM ECH configuration. The security considerations of[I-D.ietf-tls-svcb-ech][RFC9848] 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 documentcontainshas no IANAconsiderations. 7.actions. 6. References7.1.6.1. 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/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>.[I-D.ietf-tls-esni][RFC9849] 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.RFC 9849, DOI 10.17487/RFC9849, February 2026, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9849>. 6.2. 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][RFC9848] 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 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 dueRFC 9848, February 2026, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9848>. Acknowledgements Thanks toexpiryDaniel McCarney, Jim Reid, andnot possible ISE destination From -01 to -02: * ECHO -> ECH From -00 to -01: * ESNI -> ECHOPeter Yee for comments. Author's Address Stephen Farrell Trinity College Dublin Dublin 2 Ireland Phone: +353-1-896-2354 Email: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie