rfc8446

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) E. Rescorla
Request for Comments: 8446 Mozilla
Obsoletes: 5077, 5246, 6961 August 2018 Updates: 5705, 6066 Category: Standards Track ISSN: 2070-1721 The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3 Abstract This document specifies version 1.3 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. TLS allows client/server applications to communicate over the Internet in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, and message forgery. This document updates RFCs 5705 and 6066, and obsoletes RFCs 5077, 5246, and 6961. This document also specifies new requirements for TLS 1.2 implementations.

Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has

received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,

and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 1]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2018 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of

the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.

This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF

Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this

material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.

Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format

it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 2]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ....................................................6

1.1. Conventions and Terminology ................................7

1.2. Major Differences from TLS 1.2 .............................8

1.3. Updates Affecting TLS 1.2 ..................................9

2. Protocol Overview ..............................................10

2.1. Incorrect DHE Share .......................................14

2.2. Resumption and Pre-Shared Key (PSK) .......................15
2.3. 0-RTT Data ................................................17

3. Presentation Language ..........................................19

3.1. Basic Block Size ..........................................19

3.2. Miscellaneous .............................................20

3.3. Numbers ...................................................20

3.4. Vectors ...................................................20

3.5. Enumerateds ...............................................21

3.6. Constructed Types .........................................22

3.7. Constants .................................................23

3.8. Variants ..................................................23

4. Handshake Protocol .............................................24

4.1. Key Exchange Messages .....................................25

4.1.1. Cryptographic Negotiation ..........................26

4.1.2. Client Hello .......................................27

4.1.3. Server Hello .......................................31

4.1.4. Hello Retry Request ................................33

4.2. Extensions ................................................35

4.2.1. Supported Versions .................................39

4.2.2. Cookie .............................................40

4.2.3. Signature Algorithms ...............................41

4.2.4. Certificate Authorities ............................45

4.2.5. OID Filters ........................................45

4.2.6. Post-Handshake Client Authentication ...............47

4.2.7. Supported Groups ...................................47

4.2.8. Key Share ..........................................48

4.2.9. Pre-Shared Key Exchange Modes ......................51

4.2.10. Early Data Indication .............................52

4.2.11. Pre-Shared Key Extension ..........................55

4.3. Server Parameters .........................................59

4.3.1. Encrypted Extensions ...............................60

4.3.2. Certificate Request ................................60

4.4. Authentication Messages ...................................61

4.4.1. The Transcript Hash ................................63

4.4.2. Certificate ........................................64

4.4.3. Certificate Verify .................................69

4.4.4. Finished ...........................................71

4.5. End of Early Data .........................................72
Rescorla Standards Track [Page 3]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

4.6. Post-Handshake Messages ...................................73

4.6.1. New Session Ticket Message .........................73

4.6.2. Post-Handshake Authentication ......................75

4.6.3. Key and Initialization Vector Update ...............76

5. Record Protocol ................................................77

5.1. Record Layer ..............................................78

5.2. Record Payload Protection .................................80

5.3. Per-Record Nonce ..........................................82

5.4. Record Padding ............................................83

5.5. Limits on Key Usage .......................................84

6. Alert Protocol .................................................85

6.1. Closure Alerts ............................................87

6.2. Error Alerts ..............................................88

7. Cryptographic Computations .....................................90

7.1. Key Schedule ..............................................91

7.2. Updating Traffic Secrets ..................................94

7.3. Traffic Key Calculation ...................................95
7.4. (EC)DHE Shared Secret Calculation .........................95

7.4.1. Finite Field Diffie-Hellman ........................95

7.4.2. Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman ......................96

7.5. Exporters .................................................97
8. 0-RTT and Anti-Replay ..........................................98

8.1. Single-Use Tickets ........................................99

8.2. Client Hello Recording ....................................99

8.3. Freshness Checks .........................................101

9. Compliance Requirements .......................................102

9.1. Mandatory-to-Implement Cipher Suites .....................102

9.2. Mandatory-to-Implement Extensions ........................103

9.3. Protocol Invariants ......................................104

10. Security Considerations ......................................106

11. IANA Considerations ..........................................106

12. References ...................................................109

12.1. Normative References ....................................109

12.2. Informative References ..................................112

Appendix A. State Machine ........................................120
A.1. Client ....................................................120 A.2. Server ....................................................121

Appendix B. Protocol Data Structures and Constant Values .........122
B.1. Record Layer ..............................................122 B.2. Alert Messages ............................................123 B.3. Handshake Protocol ........................................124 B.3.1. Key Exchange Messages .................................125 B.3.2. Server Parameters Messages ............................131 B.3.3. Authentication Messages ...............................132 B.3.4. Ticket Establishment ..................................132 B.3.5. Updating Keys .........................................133 B.4. Cipher Suites .............................................133 Rescorla Standards Track [Page 4]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

Appendix C. Implementation Notes .................................134
C.1. Random Number Generation and Seeding ......................134 C.2. Certificates and Authentication ...........................135 C.3. Implementation Pitfalls ...................................135 C.4. Client Tracking Prevention ................................137 C.5. Unauthenticated Operation .................................137

Appendix D. Backward Compatibility ...............................138
D.1. Negotiating with an Older Server ..........................139 D.2. Negotiating with an Older Client ..........................139 D.3. 0-RTT Backward Compatibility ..............................140 D.4. Middlebox Compatibility Mode ..............................140 D.5. Security Restrictions Related to Backward Compatibility ...141

Appendix E. Overview of Security Properties ......................142
E.1. Handshake .................................................142 E.1.1. Key Derivation and HKDF ...............................145 E.1.2. Client Authentication .................................146 E.1.3. 0-RTT .................................................146 E.1.4. Exporter Independence .................................146 E.1.5. Post-Compromise Security ..............................146 E.1.6. External References ...................................147 E.2. Record Layer ..............................................147 E.2.1. External References ...................................148 E.3. Traffic Analysis ..........................................148 E.4. Side-Channel Attacks ......................................149 E.5. Replay Attacks on 0-RTT ...................................150 E.5.1. Replay and Exporters ..................................151 E.6. PSK Identity Exposure .....................................152 E.7. Sharing PSKs ..............................................152 E.8. Attacks on Static RSA .....................................152 Contributors .....................................................153 Author's Address .................................................160 Rescorla Standards Track [Page 5]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

1. Introduction

The primary goal of TLS is to provide a secure channel between two
communicating peers; the only requirement from the underlying transport is a reliable, in-order data stream. Specifically, the secure channel should provide the following properties:

• Authentication: The server side of the channel is always
  authenticated; the client side is optionally authenticated. Authentication can happen via asymmetric cryptography (e.g., RSA [RSA], the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) [ECDSA], or the Edwards-Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA) [RFC8032]) or a symmetric pre-shared key (PSK).
• Confidentiality: Data sent over the channel after establishment is
  only visible to the endpoints. TLS does not hide the length of the data it transmits, though endpoints are able to pad TLS

records in order to obscure lengths and improve protection against
traffic analysis techniques.

• Integrity: Data sent over the channel after establishment cannot
  be modified by attackers without detection.

These properties should be true even in the face of an attacker who
has complete control of the network, as described in [RFC3552]. See

Appendix E for a more complete statement of the relevant security
properties. TLS consists of two primary components:

• A handshake protocol (Section 4) that authenticates the
  communicating parties, negotiates cryptographic modes and parameters, and establishes shared keying material. The handshake protocol is designed to resist tampering; an active attacker

should not be able to force the peers to negotiate different

parameters than they would if the connection were not under
attack.

• A record protocol (Section 5) that uses the parameters established

by the handshake protocol to protect traffic between the
communicating peers. The record protocol divides traffic up into a series of records, each of which is independently protected using the traffic keys. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 6]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
TLS is application protocol independent; higher-level protocols can layer on top of TLS transparently. The TLS standard, however, does not specify how protocols add security with TLS; how to initiate TLS

handshaking and how to interpret the authentication certificates

exchanged are left to the judgment of the designers and implementors
of protocols that run on top of TLS. This document defines TLS version 1.3. While TLS 1.3 is not directly compatible with previous versions, all versions of TLS incorporate a

versioning mechanism which allows clients and servers to

interoperably negotiate a common version if one is supported by both
peers. This document supersedes and obsoletes previous versions of TLS, including version 1.2 [RFC5246]. It also obsoletes the TLS ticket mechanism defined in [RFC5077] and replaces it with the mechanism defined in Section 2.2. Because TLS 1.3 changes the way keys are derived, it updates [RFC5705] as described in Section 7.5. It also

changes how Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) messages are
carried and therefore updates [RFC6066] and obsoletes [RFC6961] as described in Section 4.4.2.1.

1.1. Conventions and 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. The following terms are used: client: The endpoint initiating the TLS connection. connection: A transport-layer connection between two endpoints. endpoint: Either the client or server of the connection. handshake: An initial negotiation between client and server that

establishes the parameters of their subsequent interactions
within TLS. peer: An endpoint. When discussing a particular endpoint, "peer"

refers to the endpoint that is not the primary subject of
discussion. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 7]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
receiver: An endpoint that is receiving records. sender: An endpoint that is transmitting records. server: The endpoint that did not initiate the TLS connection.

1.2. Major Differences from TLS 1.2

The following is a list of the major functional differences between
TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3. It is not intended to be exhaustive, and there are many minor differences.

• The list of supported symmetric encryption algorithms has been
  pruned of all algorithms that are considered legacy. Those that

remain are all Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data
(AEAD) algorithms. The cipher suite concept has been changed to

separate the authentication and key exchange mechanisms from the

record protection algorithm (including secret key length) and a

hash to be used with both the key derivation function and
handshake message authentication code (MAC).

• A zero round-trip time (0-RTT) mode was added, saving a round trip
  at connection setup for some application data, at the cost of certain security properties.
• Static RSA and Diffie-Hellman cipher suites have been removed; all

public-key based key exchange mechanisms now provide forward
secrecy.

• All handshake messages after the ServerHello are now encrypted.

The newly introduced EncryptedExtensions message allows various

extensions previously sent in the clear in the ServerHello to also
enjoy confidentiality protection.

• The key derivation functions have been redesigned. The new design

allows easier analysis by cryptographers due to their improved key
separation properties. The HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand Key Derivation Function (HKDF) is used as an underlying primitive.

• The handshake state machine has been significantly restructured to

be more consistent and to remove superfluous messages such as
ChangeCipherSpec (except when needed for middlebox compatibility).

• Elliptic curve algorithms are now in the base spec, and new
  signature algorithms, such as EdDSA, are included. TLS 1.3

removed point format negotiation in favor of a single point format
for each curve. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 8]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

• Other cryptographic improvements were made, including changing the

RSA padding to use the RSA Probabilistic Signature Scheme
(RSASSA-PSS), and the removal of compression, the Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA), and custom Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman (DHE) groups.

• The TLS 1.2 version negotiation mechanism has been deprecated in
  favor of a version list in an extension. This increases

compatibility with existing servers that incorrectly implemented
version negotiation.

• Session resumption with and without server-side state as well as

the PSK-based cipher suites of earlier TLS versions have been
replaced by a single new PSK exchange.

• References have been updated to point to the updated versions of
  RFCs, as appropriate (e.g., RFC 5280 rather than RFC 3280).

1.3. Updates Affecting TLS 1.2

This document defines several changes that optionally affect
implementations of TLS 1.2, including those which do not also support TLS 1.3:

• A version downgrade protection mechanism is described in
  Section 4.1.3.
• RSASSA-PSS signature schemes are defined in Section 4.2.3.
• The "supported_versions" ClientHello extension can be used to
  negotiate the version of TLS to use, in preference to the legacy_version field of the ClientHello.
• The "signature_algorithms_cert" extension allows a client to
  indicate which signature algorithms it can validate in X.509 certificates. Additionally, this document clarifies some compliance requirements for earlier versions of TLS; see Section 9.3. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 9]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

2. Protocol Overview

The cryptographic parameters used by the secure channel are produced
by the TLS handshake protocol. This sub-protocol of TLS is used by the client and server when first communicating with each other. The handshake protocol allows peers to negotiate a protocol version, select cryptographic algorithms, optionally authenticate each other, and establish shared secret keying material. Once the handshake is complete, the peers use the established keys to protect the application-layer traffic.

A failure of the handshake or other protocol error triggers the
termination of the connection, optionally preceded by an alert message (Section 6). TLS supports three basic key exchange modes:

• (EC)DHE (Diffie-Hellman over either finite fields or elliptic
  curves)
• PSK-only
• PSK with (EC)DHE
  Rescorla Standards Track [Page 10]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
Figure 1 below shows the basic full TLS handshake:

Client Server
Key ^ ClientHello Exch | + key_share*
| + signature_algorithms*
| + psk_key_exchange_modes*
v + pre_shared_key* --------> ServerHello ^ Key + key_share* | Exch + pre_shared_key* v {EncryptedExtensions} ^ Server {CertificateRequest*} v Params {Certificate*} ^ {CertificateVerify*} | Auth {Finished} v <-------- [Application Data*] ^ {Certificate*} Auth | {CertificateVerify*} v {Finished} --------> [Application Data] <-------> [Application Data] + Indicates noteworthy extensions sent in the previously noted message.

• Indicates optional or situation-dependent
  messages/extensions that are not always sent. {} Indicates messages protected using keys derived from a [sender]_handshake_traffic_secret. [] Indicates messages protected using keys derived from [sender]_application_traffic_secret_N. Figure 1: Message Flow for Full TLS Handshake

The handshake can be thought of as having three phases (indicated in
the diagram above):

• Key Exchange: Establish shared keying material and select the
  cryptographic parameters. Everything after this phase is encrypted.
• Server Parameters: Establish other handshake parameters
  (whether the client is authenticated, application-layer protocol support, etc.). Rescorla Standards Track [Page 11]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

• Authentication: Authenticate the server (and, optionally, the
  client) and provide key confirmation and handshake integrity. In the Key Exchange phase, the client sends the ClientHello (Section 4.1.2) message, which contains a random nonce (ClientHello.random); its offered protocol versions; a list of symmetric cipher/HKDF hash pairs; either a set of Diffie-Hellman key shares (in the "key_share" (Section 4.2.8) extension), a set of pre-shared key labels (in the "pre_shared_key" (Section 4.2.11) extension), or both; and potentially additional extensions.

Additional fields and/or messages may also be present for middlebox
compatibility.

The server processes the ClientHello and determines the appropriate
cryptographic parameters for the connection. It then responds with its own ServerHello (Section 4.1.3), which indicates the negotiated connection parameters. The combination of the ClientHello and the ServerHello determines the shared keys. If (EC)DHE key establishment is in use, then the ServerHello contains a "key_share" extension with the server's ephemeral Diffie-Hellman share; the server's share MUST be in the same group as one of the client's shares. If PSK key establishment is in use, then the ServerHello contains a "pre_shared_key" extension indicating which of the client's offered PSKs was selected. Note that implementations can use (EC)DHE and PSK together, in which case both extensions will be supplied.

The server then sends two messages to establish the Server
Parameters: EncryptedExtensions: responses to ClientHello extensions that are not required to determine the cryptographic parameters, other than those that are specific to individual certificates. [Section 4.3.1] CertificateRequest: if certificate-based client authentication is desired, the desired parameters for that certificate. This message is omitted if client authentication is not desired. [Section 4.3.2] Rescorla Standards Track [Page 12]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
Finally, the client and server exchange Authentication messages. TLS

uses the same set of messages every time that certificate-based
authentication is needed. (PSK-based authentication happens as a side effect of key exchange.) Specifically: Certificate: The certificate of the endpoint and any per-certificate extensions. This message is omitted by the server if not

authenticating with a certificate and by the client if the server

did not send CertificateRequest (thus indicating that the client
should not authenticate with a certificate). Note that if raw public keys [RFC7250] or the cached information extension [RFC7924] are in use, then this message will not contain a

certificate but rather some other value corresponding to the
server's long-term key. [Section 4.4.2] CertificateVerify: A signature over the entire handshake using the

private key corresponding to the public key in the Certificate
message. This message is omitted if the endpoint is not authenticating via a certificate. [Section 4.4.3] Finished: A MAC (Message Authentication Code) over the entire handshake. This message provides key confirmation, binds the endpoint's identity to the exchanged keys, and in PSK mode also authenticates the handshake. [Section 4.4.4] Upon receiving the server's messages, the client responds with its Authentication messages, namely Certificate and CertificateVerify (if requested), and Finished. At this point, the handshake is complete, and the client and server

derive the keying material required by the record layer to exchange
application-layer data protected through authenticated encryption.

Application Data MUST NOT be sent prior to sending the Finished
message, except as specified in Section 2.3. Note that while the server may send Application Data prior to receiving the client's Authentication messages, any data sent at that point is, of course, being sent to an unauthenticated peer. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 13]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

2.1. Incorrect DHE Share
If the client has not provided a sufficient "key_share" extension (e.g., it includes only DHE or ECDHE groups unacceptable to or unsupported by the server), the server corrects the mismatch with a

HelloRetryRequest and the client needs to restart the handshake with
an appropriate "key_share" extension, as shown in Figure 2. If no common cryptographic parameters can be negotiated, the server MUST abort the handshake with an appropriate alert.

Client Server

ClientHello

• key_share -------->

HelloRetryRequest
<-------- + key_share

ClientHello

• key_share -------->

ServerHello

• key_share {EncryptedExtensions} {CertificateRequest*} {Certificate*} {CertificateVerify*} {Finished} <-------- [Application Data*] {Certificate*} {CertificateVerify*} {Finished} --------> [Application Data] <-------> [Application Data] Figure 2: Message Flow for a Full Handshake with

Mismatched Parameters
Note: The handshake transcript incorporates the initial ClientHello/HelloRetryRequest exchange; it is not reset with the new ClientHello. TLS also allows several optimized variants of the basic handshake, as described in the following sections. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 14]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

2.2. Resumption and Pre-Shared Key (PSK)
Although TLS PSKs can be established out of band, PSKs can also be

established in a previous connection and then used to establish a new
connection ("session resumption" or "resuming" with a PSK). Once a handshake has completed, the server can send the client a PSK

identity that corresponds to a unique key derived from the initial
handshake (see Section 4.6.1). The client can then use that PSK

identity in future handshakes to negotiate the use of the associated
PSK. If the server accepts the PSK, then the security context of the

new connection is cryptographically tied to the original connection

and the key derived from the initial handshake is used to bootstrap
the cryptographic state instead of a full handshake. In TLS 1.2 and below, this functionality was provided by "session IDs" and "session tickets" [RFC5077]. Both mechanisms are obsoleted in TLS 1.3.

PSKs can be used with (EC)DHE key exchange in order to provide
forward secrecy in combination with shared keys, or can be used alone, at the cost of losing forward secrecy for the application data. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 15]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

Figure 3 shows a pair of handshakes in which the first handshake
establishes a PSK and the second handshake uses it:

Client Server
Initial Handshake:

ClientHello

• key_share -------->

ServerHello

• key_share {EncryptedExtensions} {CertificateRequest*} {Certificate*} {CertificateVerify*} {Finished} <-------- [Application Data*] {Certificate*} {CertificateVerify*} {Finished} --------> <-------- [NewSessionTicket] [Application Data] <-------> [Application Data] Subsequent Handshake:

ClientHello

• key_share* + pre_shared_key -------->

ServerHello

• pre_shared_key + key_share* {EncryptedExtensions} {Finished} <-------- [Application Data*] {Finished} --------> [Application Data] <-------> [Application Data] Figure 3: Message Flow for Resumption and PSK As the server is authenticating via a PSK, it does not send a Certificate or a CertificateVerify message. When a client offers resumption via a PSK, it SHOULD also supply a "key_share" extension

to the server to allow the server to decline resumption and fall back
to a full handshake, if needed. The server responds with a "pre_shared_key" extension to negotiate the use of PSK key establishment and can (as shown here) respond with a "key_share" extension to do (EC)DHE key establishment, thus providing forward secrecy. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 16]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
When PSKs are provisioned out of band, the PSK identity and the KDF hash algorithm to be used with the PSK MUST also be provisioned. Note: When using an out-of-band provisioned pre-shared secret, a

critical consideration is using sufficient entropy during the key
generation, as discussed in [RFC4086]. Deriving a shared secret from a password or other low-entropy sources is not secure. A low-entropy secret, or password, is subject to dictionary attacks based on the PSK binder. The specified PSK authentication is not

a strong password-based authenticated key exchange even when used
with Diffie-Hellman key establishment. Specifically, it does not

prevent an attacker that can observe the handshake from performing
a brute-force attack on the password/pre-shared key.
2.3. 0-RTT Data

When clients and servers share a PSK (either obtained externally or
via a previous handshake), TLS 1.3 allows clients to send data on the first flight ("early data"). The client uses the PSK to authenticate the server and to encrypt the early data. As shown in Figure 4, the 0-RTT data is just added to the 1-RTT handshake in the first flight. The rest of the handshake uses the same messages as for a 1-RTT handshake with PSK resumption. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 17]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

Client Server

ClientHello

• early_data + key_share* + psk_key_exchange_modes + pre_shared_key (Application Data*) -------->

ServerHello

• pre_shared_key + key_share* {EncryptedExtensions} + early_data* {Finished} <-------- [Application Data*] (EndOfEarlyData) {Finished} --------> [Application Data] <-------> [Application Data] + Indicates noteworthy extensions sent in the previously noted message.

• Indicates optional or situation-dependent
  messages/extensions that are not always sent. () Indicates messages protected using keys derived from a client_early_traffic_secret. {} Indicates messages protected using keys derived from a [sender]_handshake_traffic_secret. [] Indicates messages protected using keys derived from [sender]_application_traffic_secret_N. Figure 4: Message Flow for a 0-RTT Handshake Rescorla Standards Track [Page 18]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
IMPORTANT NOTE: The security properties for 0-RTT data are weaker than those for other kinds of TLS data. Specifically:

1. This data is not forward secret, as it is encrypted solely under
   keys derived using the offered PSK.

2. There are no guarantees of non-replay between connections.
   Protection against replay for ordinary TLS 1.3 1-RTT data is provided via the server's Random value, but 0-RTT data does not depend on the ServerHello and therefore has weaker guarantees.

This is especially relevant if the data is authenticated either

with TLS client authentication or inside the application
protocol. The same warnings apply to any use of the early_exporter_master_secret. 0-RTT data cannot be duplicated within a connection (i.e., the server will not process the same data twice for the same connection), and an

attacker will not be able to make 0-RTT data appear to be 1-RTT data
(because it is protected with different keys). Appendix E.5 contains a description of potential attacks, and Section 8 describes mechanisms which the server can use to limit the impact of replay.

3. Presentation Language

This document deals with the formatting of data in an external
representation. The following very basic and somewhat casually defined presentation syntax will be used.

3.1. Basic Block Size
The representation of all data items is explicitly specified. The basic data block size is one byte (i.e., 8 bits). Multiple-byte data items are concatenations of bytes, from left to right, from top to bottom. From the byte stream, a multi-byte item (a numeric in the following example) is formed (using C notation) by: value = (byte[0] << 8*(n-1)) | (byte[1] << 8*(n-2)) | ... | byte[n-1];

This byte ordering for multi-byte values is the commonplace network
byte order or big-endian format. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 19]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

3.2. Miscellaneous
Comments begin with "/" and end with "/". Optional components are denoted by enclosing them in "[[ ]]" (double brackets).

Single-byte entities containing uninterpreted data are of
type opaque. A type alias T' for an existing type T is defined by: T T';

3.3. Numbers
The basic numeric data type is an unsigned byte (uint8). All larger

numeric data types are constructed from a fixed-length series of
bytes concatenated as described in Section 3.1 and are also unsigned. The following numeric types are predefined. uint8 uint16[2]; uint8 uint24[3]; uint8 uint32[4]; uint8 uint64[8]; All values, here and elsewhere in the specification, are transmitted in network byte (big-endian) order; the uint32 represented by the hex bytes 01 02 03 04 is equivalent to the decimal value 16909060.

3.4. Vectors

A vector (single-dimensioned array) is a stream of homogeneous data
elements. The size of the vector may be specified at documentation time or left unspecified until runtime. In either case, the length declares the number of bytes, not the number of elements, in the vector. The syntax for specifying a new type, T', that is a fixed

length vector of type T is
T T'[n]; Here, T' occupies n bytes in the data stream, where n is a multiple of the size of T. The length of the vector is not included in the encoded stream. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 20]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
In the following example, Datum is defined to be three consecutive bytes that the protocol does not interpret, while Data is three consecutive Datum, consuming a total of nine bytes. opaque Datum[3]; /* three uninterpreted bytes / Datum Data[9]; / three consecutive 3-byte vectors */

Variable-length vectors are defined by specifying a subrange of legal
lengths, inclusively, using the notation <floor..ceiling>. When these are encoded, the actual length precedes the vector's contents in the byte stream. The length will be in the form of a number consuming as many bytes as required to hold the vector's specified maximum (ceiling) length. A variable-length vector with an actual length field of zero is referred to as an empty vector. T T'<floor..ceiling>; In the following example, "mandatory" is a vector that must contain between 300 and 400 bytes of type opaque. It can never be empty. The actual length field consumes two bytes, a uint16, which is sufficient to represent the value 400 (see Section 3.3). Similarly, "longer" can represent up to 800 bytes of data, or 400 uint16 elements, and it may be empty. Its encoding will include a two-byte actual length field prepended to the vector. The length of an

encoded vector must be an exact multiple of the length of a single
element (e.g., a 17-byte vector of uint16 would be illegal). opaque mandatory<300..400>; /* length field is two bytes, cannot be empty / uint16 longer<0..800>; / zero to 400 16-bit unsigned integers */

3.5. Enumerateds
An additional sparse data type, called "enum" or "enumerated", is available. Each definition is a different type. Only enumerateds of the same type may be assigned or compared. Every element of an enumerated must be assigned a value, as demonstrated in the following example. Since the elements of the enumerated are not ordered, they can be assigned any unique value, in any order. enum { e1(v1), e2(v2), ... , en(vn) [[, (n)]] } Te; Future extensions or additions to the protocol may define new values.

Implementations need to be able to parse and ignore unknown values
unless the definition of the field states otherwise. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 21]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

An enumerated occupies as much space in the byte stream as would its
maximal defined ordinal value. The following definition would cause one byte to be used to carry fields of type Color. enum { red(3), blue(5), white(7) } Color;

One may optionally specify a value without its associated tag to
force the width definition without defining a superfluous element. In the following example, Taste will consume two bytes in the data stream but can only assume the values 1, 2, or 4 in the current version of the protocol. enum { sweet(1), sour(2), bitter(4), (32000) } Taste;

The names of the elements of an enumeration are scoped within the
defined type. In the first example, a fully qualified reference to the second element of the enumeration would be Color.blue. Such

qualification is not required if the target of the assignment is well
specified. Color color = Color.blue; /* overspecified, legal / Color color = blue; / correct, type implicit */ The names assigned to enumerateds do not need to be unique. The

numerical value can describe a range over which the same name
applies. The value includes the minimum and maximum inclusive values in that range, separated by two period characters. This is principally useful for reserving regions of the space. enum { sad(0), meh(1..254), happy(255) } Mood;

3.6. Constructed Types

Structure types may be constructed from primitive types for
convenience. Each specification declares a new, unique type. The syntax used for definitions is much like that of C. struct { T1 f1; T2 f2; ... Tn fn; } T;

Fixed- and variable-length vector fields are allowed using the
standard vector syntax. Structures V1 and V2 in the variants example (Section 3.8) demonstrate this. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 22]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
The fields within a structure may be qualified using the type's name, with a syntax much like that available for enumerateds. For example, T.f2 refers to the second field of the previous declaration.

3.7. Constants
Fields and variables may be assigned a fixed value using "=", as in: struct { T1 f1 = 8; /* T.f1 must always be 8 */ T2 f2; } T;

3.8. Variants

Defined structures may have variants based on some knowledge that is
available within the environment. The selector must be an enumerated type that defines the possible variants the structure defines. Each arm of the select (below) specifies the type of that variant's field and an optional field label. The mechanism by which the variant is selected at runtime is not prescribed by the presentation language. struct { T1 f1; T2 f2; .... Tn fn; select (E) { case e1: Te1 [[fe1]]; case e2: Te2 [[fe2]]; .... case en: Ten [[fen]]; }; } Tv; Rescorla Standards Track [Page 23]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
For example: enum { apple(0), orange(1) } VariantTag; struct { uint16 number; opaque string<0..10>; /* variable length / } V1; struct { uint32 number; opaque string[10]; / fixed length */ } V2; struct { VariantTag type; select (VariantRecord.type) { case apple: V1; case orange: V2; }; } VariantRecord;

4. Handshake Protocol

The handshake protocol is used to negotiate the security parameters
of a connection. Handshake messages are supplied to the TLS record layer, where they are encapsulated within one or more TLSPlaintext or

TLSCiphertext structures which are processed and transmitted as
specified by the current active connection state. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 24]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
enum { client_hello(1), server_hello(2), new_session_ticket(4), end_of_early_data(5), encrypted_extensions(8), certificate(11), certificate_request(13), certificate_verify(15), finished(20), key_update(24), message_hash(254), (255) } HandshakeType; struct { HandshakeType msg_type; /* handshake type / uint24 length; / remaining bytes in message */ select (Handshake.msg_type) { case client_hello: ClientHello; case server_hello: ServerHello; case end_of_early_data: EndOfEarlyData; case encrypted_extensions: EncryptedExtensions; case certificate_request: CertificateRequest; case certificate: Certificate; case certificate_verify: CertificateVerify; case finished: Finished; case new_session_ticket: NewSessionTicket; case key_update: KeyUpdate; }; } Handshake; Protocol messages MUST be sent in the order defined in Section 4.4.1 and shown in the diagrams in Section 2. A peer which receives a

handshake message in an unexpected order MUST abort the handshake
with an "unexpected_message" alert.

New handshake message types are assigned by IANA as described in
Section 11.

4.1. Key Exchange Messages

The key exchange messages are used to determine the security

capabilities of the client and the server and to establish shared
secrets, including the traffic keys used to protect the rest of the handshake and the data. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 25]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

4.1.1. Cryptographic Negotiation
In TLS, the cryptographic negotiation proceeds by the client offering the following four sets of options in its ClientHello:

• A list of cipher suites which indicates the AEAD algorithm/HKDF
  hash pairs which the client supports.
• A "supported_groups" (Section 4.2.7) extension which indicates the
  (EC)DHE groups which the client supports and a "key_share" (Section 4.2.8) extension which contains (EC)DHE shares for some or all of these groups.
• A "signature_algorithms" (Section 4.2.3) extension which indicates
  the signature algorithms which the client can accept. A "signature_algorithms_cert" extension (Section 4.2.3) may also be added to indicate certificate-specific signature algorithms.
• A "pre_shared_key" (Section 4.2.11) extension which contains a

list of symmetric key identities known to the client and a
"psk_key_exchange_modes" (Section 4.2.9) extension which indicates the key exchange modes that may be used with PSKs. If the server does not select a PSK, then the first three of these options are entirely orthogonal: the server independently selects a cipher suite, an (EC)DHE group and key share for key establishment,

and a signature algorithm/certificate pair to authenticate itself to
the client. If there is no overlap between the received "supported_groups" and the groups supported by the server, then the server MUST abort the handshake with a "handshake_failure" or an "insufficient_security" alert. If the server selects a PSK, then it MUST also select a key establishment mode from the set indicated by the client's "psk_key_exchange_modes" extension (at present, PSK alone or with (EC)DHE). Note that if the PSK can be used without (EC)DHE, then non-overlap in the "supported_groups" parameters need not be fatal, as it is in the non-PSK case discussed in the previous paragraph.

If the server selects an (EC)DHE group and the client did not offer a
compatible "key_share" extension in the initial ClientHello, the server MUST respond with a HelloRetryRequest (Section 4.1.4) message. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 26]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

If the server successfully selects parameters and does not require a
HelloRetryRequest, it indicates the selected parameters in the ServerHello as follows:

• If PSK is being used, then the server will send a "pre_shared_key"
  extension indicating the selected key.
• When (EC)DHE is in use, the server will also provide a "key_share"
  extension. If PSK is not being used, then (EC)DHE and certificate-based authentication are always used.
• When authenticating via a certificate, the server will send the
  Certificate (Section 4.4.2) and CertificateVerify (Section 4.4.3) messages. In TLS 1.3 as defined by this document, either a PSK or a certificate is always used, but not both. Future documents may define how to use them together.

If the server is unable to negotiate a supported set of parameters
(i.e., there is no overlap between the client and server parameters), it MUST abort the handshake with either a "handshake_failure" or "insufficient_security" fatal alert (see Section 6).

4.1.2. Client Hello
When a client first connects to a server, it is REQUIRED to send the ClientHello as its first TLS message. The client will also send a

ClientHello when the server has responded to its ClientHello with a
HelloRetryRequest. In that case, the client MUST send the same ClientHello without modification, except as follows:

• If a "key_share" extension was supplied in the HelloRetryRequest,

replacing the list of shares with a list containing a single
KeyShareEntry from the indicated group.

• Removing the "early_data" extension (Section 4.2.10) if one was
  present. Early data is not permitted after a HelloRetryRequest.
• Including a "cookie" extension if one was provided in the
  HelloRetryRequest. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 27]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

• Updating the "pre_shared_key" extension if present by recomputing
  the "obfuscated_ticket_age" and binder values and (optionally) removing any PSKs which are incompatible with the server's indicated cipher suite.
• Optionally adding, removing, or changing the length of the
  "padding" extension [RFC7685].
• Other modifications that may be allowed by an extension defined in
  the future and present in the HelloRetryRequest. Because TLS 1.3 forbids renegotiation, if a server has negotiated TLS 1.3 and receives a ClientHello at any other time, it MUST terminate the connection with an "unexpected_message" alert.

If a server established a TLS connection with a previous version of
TLS and receives a TLS 1.3 ClientHello in a renegotiation, it MUST retain the previous protocol version. In particular, it MUST NOT negotiate TLS 1.3. Structure of this message: uint16 ProtocolVersion; opaque Random[32]; uint8 CipherSuite[2]; /* Cryptographic suite selector / struct { ProtocolVersion legacy_version = 0x0303; / TLS v1.2 */ Random random; opaque legacy_session_id<0..32>; CipherSuite cipher_suites<2..2^16-2>; opaque legacy_compression_methods<1..2^8-1>; Extension extensions<8..2^16-1>; } ClientHello; Rescorla Standards Track [Page 28]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
legacy_version: In previous versions of TLS, this field was used for

version negotiation and represented the highest version number
supported by the client. Experience has shown that many servers do not properly implement version negotiation, leading to "version intolerance" in which the server rejects an otherwise acceptable ClientHello with a version number higher than it supports. In TLS 1.3, the client indicates its version preferences in the "supported_versions" extension (Section 4.2.1) and the legacy_version field MUST be set to 0x0303, which is the version number for TLS 1.2. TLS 1.3 ClientHellos are identified as having a legacy_version of 0x0303 and a supported_versions extension present with 0x0304 as the highest version indicated therein. (See Appendix D for details about backward compatibility.) random: 32 bytes generated by a secure random number generator. See

Appendix C for additional information.
legacy_session_id: Versions of TLS before TLS 1.3 supported a "session resumption" feature which has been merged with pre-shared keys in this version (see Section 2.2). A client which has a cached session ID set by a pre-TLS 1.3 server SHOULD set this field to that value. In compatibility mode (see Appendix D.4), this field MUST be non-empty, so a client not offering a pre-TLS 1.3 session MUST generate a new 32-byte value. This value

need not be random but SHOULD be unpredictable to avoid

implementations fixating on a specific value (also known as
ossification). Otherwise, it MUST be set as a zero-length vector (i.e., a zero-valued single byte length field). cipher_suites: A list of the symmetric cipher options supported by the client, specifically the record protection algorithm (including secret key length) and a hash to be used with HKDF, in descending order of client preference. Values are defined in

Appendix B.4. If the list contains cipher suites that the server
does not recognize, support, or wish to use, the server MUST

ignore those cipher suites and process the remaining ones as
usual. If the client is attempting a PSK key establishment, it

SHOULD advertise at least one cipher suite indicating a Hash
associated with the PSK. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 29]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
legacy_compression_methods: Versions of TLS before 1.3 supported

compression with the list of supported compression methods being
sent in this field. For every TLS 1.3 ClientHello, this vector MUST contain exactly one byte, set to zero, which corresponds to the "null" compression method in prior versions of TLS. If a TLS 1.3 ClientHello is received with any other value in this field, the server MUST abort the handshake with an "illegal_parameter" alert. Note that TLS 1.3 servers might receive TLS 1.2 or prior ClientHellos which contain other

compression methods and (if negotiating such a prior version) MUST
follow the procedures for the appropriate prior version of TLS. extensions: Clients request extended functionality from servers by sending data in the extensions field. The actual "Extension" format is defined in Section 4.2. In TLS 1.3, the use of certain extensions is mandatory, as functionality has moved into

extensions to preserve ClientHello compatibility with previous
versions of TLS. Servers MUST ignore unrecognized extensions.

All versions of TLS allow an extensions field to optionally follow
the compression_methods field. TLS 1.3 ClientHello messages always contain extensions (minimally "supported_versions", otherwise, they will be interpreted as TLS 1.2 ClientHello messages). However, TLS 1.3 servers might receive ClientHello messages without an extensions field from prior versions of TLS. The presence of

extensions can be detected by determining whether there are bytes
following the compression_methods field at the end of the ClientHello. Note that this method of detecting optional data differs from the normal TLS method of having a variable-length field,

but it is used for compatibility with TLS before extensions were
defined. TLS 1.3 servers will need to perform this check first and only attempt to negotiate TLS 1.3 if the "supported_versions" extension is present. If negotiating a version of TLS prior to 1.3,

a server MUST check that the message either contains no data after
legacy_compression_methods or that it contains a valid extensions block with no data following. If not, then it MUST abort the handshake with a "decode_error" alert.

In the event that a client requests additional functionality using
extensions and this functionality is not supplied by the server, the client MAY abort the handshake. After sending the ClientHello message, the client waits for a ServerHello or HelloRetryRequest message. If early data is in use, the client may transmit early Application Data (Section 2.3) while waiting for the next handshake message. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 30]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

4.1.3. Server Hello

The server will send this message in response to a ClientHello

message to proceed with the handshake if it is able to negotiate an
acceptable set of handshake parameters based on the ClientHello. Structure of this message: struct { ProtocolVersion legacy_version = 0x0303; /* TLS v1.2 */ Random random; opaque legacy_session_id_echo<0..32>; CipherSuite cipher_suite; uint8 legacy_compression_method = 0; Extension extensions<6..2^16-1>; } ServerHello; legacy_version: In previous versions of TLS, this field was used for

version negotiation and represented the selected version number
for the connection. Unfortunately, some middleboxes fail when presented with new values. In TLS 1.3, the TLS server indicates its version using the "supported_versions" extension (Section 4.2.1), and the legacy_version field MUST be set to 0x0303, which is the version number for TLS 1.2. (See Appendix D for details about backward compatibility.) random: 32 bytes generated by a secure random number generator. See

Appendix C for additional information. The last 8 bytes MUST be
overwritten as described below if negotiating TLS 1.2 or TLS 1.1, but the remaining bytes MUST be random. This structure is

generated by the server and MUST be generated independently of the
ClientHello.random. legacy_session_id_echo: The contents of the client's legacy_session_id field. Note that this field is echoed even if the client's value corresponded to a cached pre-TLS 1.3 session which the server has chosen not to resume. A client which receives a legacy_session_id_echo field that does not match what

it sent in the ClientHello MUST abort the handshake with an
"illegal_parameter" alert. cipher_suite: The single cipher suite selected by the server from the list in ClientHello.cipher_suites. A client which receives a

cipher suite that was not offered MUST abort the handshake with an
"illegal_parameter" alert. legacy_compression_method: A single byte which MUST have the value 0. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 31]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
extensions: A list of extensions. The ServerHello MUST only include

extensions which are required to establish the cryptographic
context and negotiate the protocol version. All TLS 1.3 ServerHello messages MUST contain the "supported_versions" extension. Current ServerHello messages additionally contain either the "pre_shared_key" extension or the "key_share" extension, or both (when using a PSK with (EC)DHE key establishment). Other extensions (see Section 4.2) are sent separately in the EncryptedExtensions message.

For reasons of backward compatibility with middleboxes (see

Appendix D.4), the HelloRetryRequest message uses the same structure
as the ServerHello, but with Random set to the special value of the SHA-256 of "HelloRetryRequest":

CF 21 AD 74 E5 9A 61 11 BE 1D 8C 02 1E 65 B8 91

C2 A2 11 16 7A BB 8C 5E 07 9E 09 E2 C8 A8 33 9C
Upon receiving a message with type server_hello, implementations MUST first examine the Random value and, if it matches this value, process it as described in Section 4.1.4). TLS 1.3 has a downgrade protection mechanism embedded in the server's random value. TLS 1.3 servers which negotiate TLS 1.2 or below in

response to a ClientHello MUST set the last 8 bytes of their Random
value specially in their ServerHello. If negotiating TLS 1.2, TLS 1.3 servers MUST set the last 8 bytes of their Random value to the bytes: 44 4F 57 4E 47 52 44 01 If negotiating TLS 1.1 or below, TLS 1.3 servers MUST, and TLS 1.2 servers SHOULD, set the last 8 bytes of their ServerHello.Random value to the bytes: 44 4F 57 4E 47 52 44 00 TLS 1.3 clients receiving a ServerHello indicating TLS 1.2 or below

MUST check that the last 8 bytes are not equal to either of these
values. TLS 1.2 clients SHOULD also check that the last 8 bytes are not equal to the second value if the ServerHello indicates TLS 1.1 or below. If a match is found, the client MUST abort the handshake with an "illegal_parameter" alert. This mechanism provides limited

protection against downgrade attacks over and above what is provided
by the Finished exchange: because the ServerKeyExchange, a message present in TLS 1.2 and below, includes a signature over both random values, it is not possible for an active attacker to modify the Rescorla Standards Track [Page 32]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

random values without detection as long as ephemeral ciphers are
used. It does not provide downgrade protection when static RSA is used. Note: This is a change from [RFC5246], so in practice many TLS 1.2 clients and servers will not behave as specified above. A legacy TLS client performing renegotiation with TLS 1.2 or prior and which receives a TLS 1.3 ServerHello during renegotiation MUST abort the handshake with a "protocol_version" alert. Note that renegotiation is not possible when TLS 1.3 has been negotiated.

4.1.4. Hello Retry Request

The server will send this message in response to a ClientHello

message if it is able to find an acceptable set of parameters but the

ClientHello does not contain sufficient information to proceed with
the handshake. As discussed in Section 4.1.3, the HelloRetryRequest has the same format as a ServerHello message, and the legacy_version, legacy_session_id_echo, cipher_suite, and legacy_compression_method fields have the same meaning. However, for convenience we discuss "HelloRetryRequest" throughout this document as if it were a distinct message. The server's extensions MUST contain "supported_versions". Additionally, it SHOULD contain the minimal set of extensions necessary for the client to generate a correct ClientHello pair. As with the ServerHello, a HelloRetryRequest MUST NOT contain any

extensions that were not first offered by the client in its
ClientHello, with the exception of optionally the "cookie" (see Section 4.2.2) extension. Upon receipt of a HelloRetryRequest, the client MUST check the legacy_version, legacy_session_id_echo, cipher_suite, and legacy_compression_method as specified in Section 4.1.3 and then process the extensions, starting with determining the version using "supported_versions". Clients MUST abort the handshake with an "illegal_parameter" alert if the HelloRetryRequest would not result in any change in the ClientHello. If a client receives a second HelloRetryRequest in the same connection (i.e., where the ClientHello was itself in response to a HelloRetryRequest), it MUST abort the handshake with an "unexpected_message" alert. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 33]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
Otherwise, the client MUST process all extensions in the HelloRetryRequest and send a second updated ClientHello. The HelloRetryRequest extensions defined in this specification are:

• supported_versions (see Section 4.2.1)
• cookie (see Section 4.2.2)
• key_share (see Section 4.2.8)

A client which receives a cipher suite that was not offered MUST
abort the handshake. Servers MUST ensure that they negotiate the

same cipher suite when receiving a conformant updated ClientHello (if

the server selects the cipher suite as the first step in the
negotiation, then this will happen automatically). Upon receiving the ServerHello, clients MUST check that the cipher suite supplied in

the ServerHello is the same as that in the HelloRetryRequest and
otherwise abort the handshake with an "illegal_parameter" alert. In addition, in its updated ClientHello, the client SHOULD NOT offer

any pre-shared keys associated with a hash other than that of the
selected cipher suite. This allows the client to avoid having to

compute partial hash transcripts for multiple hashes in the second
ClientHello. The value of selected_version in the HelloRetryRequest "supported_versions" extension MUST be retained in the ServerHello, and a client MUST abort the handshake with an "illegal_parameter" alert if the value changes. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 34]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

4.2. Extensions

A number of TLS messages contain tag-length-value encoded extensions
structures. struct { ExtensionType extension_type; opaque extension_data<0..2^16-1>; } Extension; enum { server_name(0), /* RFC 6066 / max_fragment_length(1), / RFC 6066 / status_request(5), / RFC 6066 / supported_groups(10), / RFC 8422, 7919 / signature_algorithms(13), / RFC 8446 / use_srtp(14), / RFC 5764 / heartbeat(15), / RFC 6520 / application_layer_protocol_negotiation(16), / RFC 7301 / signed_certificate_timestamp(18), / RFC 6962 / client_certificate_type(19), / RFC 7250 / server_certificate_type(20), / RFC 7250 / padding(21), / RFC 7685 / pre_shared_key(41), / RFC 8446 / early_data(42), / RFC 8446 / supported_versions(43), / RFC 8446 / cookie(44), / RFC 8446 / psk_key_exchange_modes(45), / RFC 8446 / certificate_authorities(47), / RFC 8446 / oid_filters(48), / RFC 8446 / post_handshake_auth(49), / RFC 8446 / signature_algorithms_cert(50), / RFC 8446 / key_share(51), / RFC 8446 */ (65535) } ExtensionType; Rescorla Standards Track [Page 35]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
Here:

• "extension_type" identifies the particular extension type.
• "extension_data" contains information specific to the particular
  extension type.

The list of extension types is maintained by IANA as described in
Section 11. Extensions are generally structured in a request/response fashion,

though some extensions are just indications with no corresponding
response. The client sends its extension requests in the ClientHello message, and the server sends its extension responses in the ServerHello, EncryptedExtensions, HelloRetryRequest, and Certificate messages. The server sends extension requests in the

CertificateRequest message which a client MAY respond to with a
Certificate message. The server MAY also send unsolicited extensions in the NewSessionTicket, though the client does not respond directly to these.

Implementations MUST NOT send extension responses if the remote
endpoint did not send the corresponding extension requests, with the exception of the "cookie" extension in the HelloRetryRequest. Upon receiving such an extension, an endpoint MUST abort the handshake with an "unsupported_extension" alert.

The table below indicates the messages where a given extension may
appear, using the following notation: CH (ClientHello), SH (ServerHello), EE (EncryptedExtensions), CT (Certificate), CR (CertificateRequest), NST (NewSessionTicket), and HRR (HelloRetryRequest). If an implementation receives an extension

which it recognizes and which is not specified for the message in
which it appears, it MUST abort the handshake with an "illegal_parameter" alert. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 36]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| Extension | TLS 1.3 |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| server_name [RFC6066] | CH, EE |
| | |
| max_fragment_length [RFC6066] | CH, EE |
| | |
| status_request [RFC6066] | CH, CR, CT |
| | |
| supported_groups [RFC7919] | CH, EE |
| | |
| signature_algorithms (RFC 8446) | CH, CR |
| | |
| use_srtp [RFC5764] | CH, EE |
| | |
| heartbeat [RFC6520] | CH, EE |
| | |
| application_layer_protocol_negotiation [RFC7301] | CH, EE |
| | |
| signed_certificate_timestamp [RFC6962] | CH, CR, CT |
| | |
| client_certificate_type [RFC7250] | CH, EE |
| | |
| server_certificate_type [RFC7250] | CH, EE |
| | |
| padding [RFC7685] | CH |
| | |
| key_share (RFC 8446) | CH, SH, HRR |
| | |
| pre_shared_key (RFC 8446) | CH, SH |
| | |
| psk_key_exchange_modes (RFC 8446) | CH |
| | |
| early_data (RFC 8446) | CH, EE, NST |
| | |
| cookie (RFC 8446) | CH, HRR |
| | |
| supported_versions (RFC 8446) | CH, SH, HRR |
| | |
| certificate_authorities (RFC 8446) | CH, CR |
| | |
| oid_filters (RFC 8446) | CR |
| | |
| post_handshake_auth (RFC 8446) | CH |
| | |
| signature_algorithms_cert (RFC 8446) | CH, CR |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------+
Rescorla Standards Track [Page 37]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
When multiple extensions of different types are present, the extensions MAY appear in any order, with the exception of "pre_shared_key" (Section 4.2.11) which MUST be the last extension in

the ClientHello (but can appear anywhere in the ServerHello
extensions block). There MUST NOT be more than one extension of the same type in a given extension block. In TLS 1.3, unlike TLS 1.2, extensions are negotiated for each handshake even when in resumption-PSK mode. However, 0-RTT parameters are those negotiated in the previous handshake; mismatches may require rejecting 0-RTT (see Section 4.2.10).

There are subtle (and not so subtle) interactions that may occur in

this protocol between new features and existing features which may
result in a significant reduction in overall security. The following

considerations should be taken into account when designing new
extensions:

• Some cases where a server does not agree to an extension are error
  conditions (e.g., the handshake cannot continue), and some are simply refusals to support particular features. In general, error

alerts should be used for the former and a field in the server
extension response for the latter.

• Extensions should, as far as possible, be designed to prevent any

attack that forces use (or non-use) of a particular feature by
manipulation of handshake messages. This principle should be

followed regardless of whether the feature is believed to cause a
security problem. Often the fact that the extension fields are

included in the inputs to the Finished message hashes will be
sufficient, but extreme care is needed when the extension changes the meaning of messages sent in the handshake phase. Designers

and implementors should be aware of the fact that until the
handshake has been authenticated, active attackers can modify messages and insert, remove, or replace extensions. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 38]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

4.2.1. Supported Versions
struct { select (Handshake.msg_type) { case client_hello: ProtocolVersion versions<2..254>; case server_hello: /* and HelloRetryRequest */ ProtocolVersion selected_version; }; } SupportedVersions; The "supported_versions" extension is used by the client to indicate

which versions of TLS it supports and by the server to indicate which
version it is using. The extension contains a list of supported versions in preference order, with the most preferred version first.

Implementations of this specification MUST send this extension in the

ClientHello containing all versions of TLS which they are prepared to
negotiate (for this specification, that means minimally 0x0304, but if previous versions of TLS are allowed to be negotiated, they MUST be present as well). If this extension is not present, servers which are compliant with this specification and which also support TLS 1.2 MUST negotiate TLS 1.2 or prior as specified in [RFC5246], even if ClientHello.legacy_version is 0x0304 or later. Servers MAY abort the handshake upon receiving a ClientHello with legacy_version 0x0304 or later. If this extension is present in the ClientHello, servers MUST NOT use the ClientHello.legacy_version value for version negotiation and MUST use only the "supported_versions" extension to determine client preferences. Servers MUST only select a version of TLS present in

that extension and MUST ignore any unknown versions that are present
in that extension. Note that this mechanism makes it possible to negotiate a version prior to TLS 1.2 if one side supports a sparse range. Implementations of TLS 1.3 which choose to support prior versions of TLS SHOULD support TLS 1.2. Servers MUST be prepared to

receive ClientHellos that include this extension but do not include
0x0304 in the list of versions. A server which negotiates a version of TLS prior to TLS 1.3 MUST set ServerHello.version and MUST NOT send the "supported_versions" extension. A server which negotiates TLS 1.3 MUST respond by sending a "supported_versions" extension containing the selected version value (0x0304). It MUST set the ServerHello.legacy_version field to 0x0303 (TLS 1.2). Clients MUST check for this extension prior to

processing the rest of the ServerHello (although they will have to
Rescorla Standards Track [Page 39]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
parse the ServerHello in order to read the extension). If this extension is present, clients MUST ignore the ServerHello.legacy_version value and MUST use only the "supported_versions" extension to determine the selected version. If the "supported_versions" extension in the ServerHello contains a

version not offered by the client or contains a version prior to
TLS 1.3, the client MUST abort the handshake with an "illegal_parameter" alert.

4.2.2. Cookie
struct { opaque cookie<1..2^16-1>; } Cookie; Cookies serve two primary purposes:

• Allowing the server to force the client to demonstrate

reachability at their apparent network address (thus providing a
measure of DoS protection). This is primarily useful for non-connection-oriented transports (see [RFC6347] for an example of this).

• Allowing the server to offload state to the client, thus allowing
  it to send a HelloRetryRequest without storing any state. The

server can do this by storing the hash of the ClientHello in the

HelloRetryRequest cookie (protected with some suitable integrity
protection algorithm). When sending a HelloRetryRequest, the server MAY provide a "cookie"

extension to the client (this is an exception to the usual rule that

the only extensions that may be sent are those that appear in the
ClientHello). When sending the new ClientHello, the client MUST copy

the contents of the extension received in the HelloRetryRequest into
a "cookie" extension in the new ClientHello. Clients MUST NOT use cookies in their initial ClientHello in subsequent connections. When a server is operating statelessly, it may receive an unprotected record of type change_cipher_spec between the first and second ClientHello (see Section 5). Since the server is not storing any state, this will appear as if it were the first message to be received. Servers operating statelessly MUST ignore these records. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 40]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

4.2.3. Signature Algorithms
TLS 1.3 provides two extensions for indicating which signature algorithms may be used in digital signatures. The "signature_algorithms_cert" extension applies to signatures in certificates, and the "signature_algorithms" extension, which originally appeared in TLS 1.2, applies to signatures in CertificateVerify messages. The keys found in certificates MUST also

be of appropriate type for the signature algorithms they are used
with. This is a particular issue for RSA keys and PSS signatures, as described below. If no "signature_algorithms_cert" extension is present, then the "signature_algorithms" extension also applies to signatures appearing in certificates. Clients which desire the

server to authenticate itself via a certificate MUST send the
"signature_algorithms" extension. If a server is authenticating via a certificate and the client has not sent a "signature_algorithms" extension, then the server MUST abort the handshake with a "missing_extension" alert (see Section 9.2). The "signature_algorithms_cert" extension was added to allow

implementations which supported different sets of algorithms for
certificates and in TLS itself to clearly signal their capabilities. TLS 1.2 implementations SHOULD also process this extension.

Implementations which have the same policy in both cases MAY omit the
"signature_algorithms_cert" extension. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 41]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
The "extension_data" field of these extensions contains a SignatureSchemeList value: enum { /* RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 algorithms / rsa_pkcs1_sha256(0x0401), rsa_pkcs1_sha384(0x0501), rsa_pkcs1_sha512(0x0601), / ECDSA algorithms / ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256(0x0403), ecdsa_secp384r1_sha384(0x0503), ecdsa_secp521r1_sha512(0x0603), / RSASSA-PSS algorithms with public key OID rsaEncryption / rsa_pss_rsae_sha256(0x0804), rsa_pss_rsae_sha384(0x0805), rsa_pss_rsae_sha512(0x0806), / EdDSA algorithms / ed25519(0x0807), ed448(0x0808), / RSASSA-PSS algorithms with public key OID RSASSA-PSS / rsa_pss_pss_sha256(0x0809), rsa_pss_pss_sha384(0x080a), rsa_pss_pss_sha512(0x080b), / Legacy algorithms / rsa_pkcs1_sha1(0x0201), ecdsa_sha1(0x0203), / Reserved Code Points */ private_use(0xFE00..0xFFFF), (0xFFFF) } SignatureScheme; struct { SignatureScheme supported_signature_algorithms<2..2^16-2>; } SignatureSchemeList; Note: This enum is named "SignatureScheme" because there is already a "SignatureAlgorithm" type in TLS 1.2, which this replaces. We use the term "signature algorithm" throughout the text. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 42]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

Each SignatureScheme value lists a single signature algorithm that
the client is willing to verify. The values are indicated in descending order of preference. Note that a signature algorithm takes as input an arbitrary-length message, rather than a digest.

Algorithms which traditionally act on a digest should be defined in

TLS to first hash the input with a specified hash algorithm and then
proceed as usual. The code point groups listed above have the following meanings: RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 algorithms: Indicates a signature algorithm using RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 [RFC8017] with the corresponding hash algorithm as defined in [SHS]. These values refer solely to signatures which appear in certificates (see Section 4.4.2.2) and are not defined for use in signed TLS handshake messages, although they MAY appear in "signature_algorithms" and "signature_algorithms_cert" for backward compatibility with TLS 1.2. ECDSA algorithms: Indicates a signature algorithm using ECDSA [ECDSA], the corresponding curve as defined in ANSI X9.62 [ECDSA] and FIPS 186-4 [DSS], and the corresponding hash algorithm as defined in [SHS]. The signature is represented as a DER-encoded [X690] ECDSA-Sig-Value structure. RSASSA-PSS RSAE algorithms: Indicates a signature algorithm using RSASSA-PSS [RFC8017] with mask generation function 1. The digest

used in the mask generation function and the digest being signed
are both the corresponding hash algorithm as defined in [SHS].

The length of the Salt MUST be equal to the length of the output
of the digest algorithm. If the public key is carried in an X.509 certificate, it MUST use the rsaEncryption OID [RFC5280]. EdDSA algorithms: Indicates a signature algorithm using EdDSA as defined in [RFC8032] or its successors. Note that these correspond to the "PureEdDSA" algorithms and not the "prehash" variants. RSASSA-PSS PSS algorithms: Indicates a signature algorithm using RSASSA-PSS [RFC8017] with mask generation function 1. The digest

used in the mask generation function and the digest being signed
are both the corresponding hash algorithm as defined in [SHS].

The length of the Salt MUST be equal to the length of the digest
algorithm. If the public key is carried in an X.509 certificate, it MUST use the RSASSA-PSS OID [RFC5756]. When used in certificate signatures, the algorithm parameters MUST be DER encoded. If the corresponding public key's parameters are present, then the parameters in the signature MUST be identical to those in the public key. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 43]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
Legacy algorithms: Indicates algorithms which are being deprecated because they use algorithms with known weaknesses, specifically

SHA-1 which is used in this context with either (1) RSA using
RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 or (2) ECDSA. These values refer solely to signatures which appear in certificates (see Section 4.4.2.2) and are not defined for use in signed TLS handshake messages, although they MAY appear in "signature_algorithms" and "signature_algorithms_cert" for backward compatibility with TLS 1.2. Endpoints SHOULD NOT negotiate these algorithms but are permitted to do so solely for backward compatibility. Clients

offering these values MUST list them as the lowest priority
(listed after all other algorithms in SignatureSchemeList). TLS 1.3 servers MUST NOT offer a SHA-1 signed certificate unless

no valid certificate chain can be produced without it (see
Section 4.4.2.2).

The signatures on certificates that are self-signed or certificates
that are trust anchors are not validated, since they begin a certification path (see [RFC5280], Section 3.2). A certificate that

begins a certification path MAY use a signature algorithm that is not
advertised as being supported in the "signature_algorithms" extension. Note that TLS 1.2 defines this extension differently. TLS 1.3 implementations willing to negotiate TLS 1.2 MUST behave in accordance with the requirements of [RFC5246] when negotiating that version. In particular:

• TLS 1.2 ClientHellos MAY omit this extension.
• In TLS 1.2, the extension contained hash/signature pairs. The
  pairs are encoded in two octets, so SignatureScheme values have been allocated to align with TLS 1.2's encoding. Some legacy pairs are left unallocated. These algorithms are deprecated as of TLS 1.3. They MUST NOT be offered or negotiated by any implementation. In particular, MD5 [SLOTH], SHA-224, and DSA MUST NOT be used.
• ECDSA signature schemes align with TLS 1.2's ECDSA hash/signature
  pairs. However, the old semantics did not constrain the signing curve. If TLS 1.2 is negotiated, implementations MUST be prepared

to accept a signature that uses any curve that they advertised in
the "supported_groups" extension.

• Implementations that advertise support for RSASSA-PSS (which is
  mandatory in TLS 1.3) MUST be prepared to accept a signature using that scheme even when TLS 1.2 is negotiated. In TLS 1.2, RSASSA-PSS is used with RSA cipher suites. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 44]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

4.2.4. Certificate Authorities
The "certificate_authorities" extension is used to indicate the

certificate authorities (CAs) which an endpoint supports and which

SHOULD be used by the receiving endpoint to guide certificate
selection. The body of the "certificate_authorities" extension consists of a CertificateAuthoritiesExtension structure. opaque DistinguishedName<1..2^16-1>; struct { DistinguishedName authorities<3..2^16-1>; } CertificateAuthoritiesExtension; authorities: A list of the distinguished names [X501] of acceptable certificate authorities, represented in DER-encoded [X690] format.

These distinguished names specify a desired distinguished name for
a trust anchor or subordinate CA; thus, this message can be used

to describe known trust anchors as well as a desired authorization
space. The client MAY send the "certificate_authorities" extension in the ClientHello message. The server MAY send it in the CertificateRequest message. The "trusted_ca_keys" extension [RFC6066], which serves a similar purpose but is more complicated, is not used in TLS 1.3 (although it

may appear in ClientHello messages from clients which are offering
prior versions of TLS).

4.2.5. OID Filters
The "oid_filters" extension allows servers to provide a set of OID/value pairs which it would like the client's certificate to match. This extension, if provided by the server, MUST only be sent in the CertificateRequest message. struct { opaque certificate_extension_oid<1..2^8-1>; opaque certificate_extension_values<0..2^16-1>; } OIDFilter; struct { OIDFilter filters<0..2^16-1>; } OIDFilterExtension; Rescorla Standards Track [Page 45]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
filters: A list of certificate extension OIDs [RFC5280] with their allowed value(s) and represented in DER-encoded [X690] format. Some certificate extension OIDs allow multiple values (e.g., Extended Key Usage). If the server has included a non-empty filters list, the client certificate included in the response MUST

contain all of the specified extension OIDs that the client
recognizes. For each extension OID recognized by the client, all

of the specified values MUST be present in the client certificate
(but the certificate MAY have other values as well). However, the

client MUST ignore and skip any unrecognized certificate extension
OIDs. If the client ignored some of the required certificate

extension OIDs and supplied a certificate that does not satisfy
the request, the server MAY at its discretion either continue the

connection without client authentication or abort the handshake
with an "unsupported_certificate" alert. Any given OID MUST NOT appear more than once in the filters list.

PKIX RFCs define a variety of certificate extension OIDs and their
corresponding value types. Depending on the type, matching certificate extension values are not necessarily bitwise-equal. It

is expected that TLS implementations will rely on their PKI libraries
to perform certificate selection using certificate extension OIDs.

This document defines matching rules for two standard certificate
extensions defined in [RFC5280]:

• The Key Usage extension in a certificate matches the request when

all key usage bits asserted in the request are also asserted in
the Key Usage certificate extension.

• The Extended Key Usage extension in a certificate matches the

request when all key purpose OIDs present in the request are also
found in the Extended Key Usage certificate extension. The special anyExtendedKeyUsage OID MUST NOT be used in the request.

Separate specifications may define matching rules for other
certificate extensions. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 46]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

4.2.6. Post-Handshake Client Authentication
The "post_handshake_auth" extension is used to indicate that a client is willing to perform post-handshake authentication (Section 4.6.2).

Servers MUST NOT send a post-handshake CertificateRequest to clients
which do not offer this extension. Servers MUST NOT send this extension. struct {} PostHandshakeAuth; The "extension_data" field of the "post_handshake_auth" extension is zero length.

4.2.7. Supported Groups
When sent by the client, the "supported_groups" extension indicates the named groups which the client supports for key exchange, ordered from most preferred to least preferred. Note: In versions of TLS prior to TLS 1.3, this extension was named "elliptic_curves" and only contained elliptic curve groups. See [RFC8422] and [RFC7919]. This extension was also used to negotiate ECDSA curves. Signature algorithms are now negotiated independently (see Section 4.2.3). The "extension_data" field of this extension contains a "NamedGroupList" value: enum { /* Elliptic Curve Groups (ECDHE) / secp256r1(0x0017), secp384r1(0x0018), secp521r1(0x0019), x25519(0x001D), x448(0x001E), / Finite Field Groups (DHE) / ffdhe2048(0x0100), ffdhe3072(0x0101), ffdhe4096(0x0102), ffdhe6144(0x0103), ffdhe8192(0x0104), / Reserved Code Points */ ffdhe_private_use(0x01FC..0x01FF), ecdhe_private_use(0xFE00..0xFEFF), (0xFFFF) } NamedGroup; struct { NamedGroup named_group_list<2..2^16-1>; } NamedGroupList; Rescorla Standards Track [Page 47]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
Elliptic Curve Groups (ECDHE): Indicates support for the corresponding named curve, defined in either FIPS 186-4 [DSS] or [RFC7748]. Values 0xFE00 through 0xFEFF are reserved for Private Use [RFC8126]. Finite Field Groups (DHE): Indicates support for the corresponding finite field group, defined in [RFC7919]. Values 0x01FC through 0x01FF are reserved for Private Use. Items in named_group_list are ordered according to the sender's preferences (most preferred choice first). As of TLS 1.3, servers are permitted to send the "supported_groups" extension to the client. Clients MUST NOT act upon any information found in "supported_groups" prior to successful completion of the

handshake but MAY use the information learned from a successfully

completed handshake to change what groups they use in their
"key_share" extension in subsequent connections. If the server has a group it prefers to the ones in the "key_share" extension but is still willing to accept the ClientHello, it SHOULD send "supported_groups" to update the client's view of its preferences; this extension SHOULD contain all groups the server supports, regardless of whether they are currently supported by the client.

4.2.8. Key Share
The "key_share" extension contains the endpoint's cryptographic parameters. Clients MAY send an empty client_shares vector in order to request group selection from the server, at the cost of an additional round trip (see Section 4.1.4). struct { NamedGroup group; opaque key_exchange<1..2^16-1>; } KeyShareEntry; group: The named group for the key being exchanged. key_exchange: Key exchange information. The contents of this field

are determined by the specified group and its corresponding
definition. Finite Field Diffie-Hellman [DH76] parameters are described in Section 4.2.8.1; Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman parameters are described in Section 4.2.8.2. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 48]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
In the ClientHello message, the "extension_data" field of this extension contains a "KeyShareClientHello" value: struct { KeyShareEntry client_shares<0..2^16-1>; } KeyShareClientHello; client_shares: A list of offered KeyShareEntry values in descending order of client preference.

This vector MAY be empty if the client is requesting a
HelloRetryRequest. Each KeyShareEntry value MUST correspond to a group offered in the "supported_groups" extension and MUST appear in the same order. However, the values MAY be a non-contiguous subset of the "supported_groups" extension and MAY omit the most preferred groups. Such a situation could arise if the most preferred groups

are new and unlikely to be supported in enough places to make
pregenerating key shares for them efficient.

Clients can offer as many KeyShareEntry values as the number of
supported groups it is offering, each representing a single set of key exchange parameters. For instance, a client might offer shares for several elliptic curves or multiple FFDHE groups. The key_exchange values for each KeyShareEntry MUST be generated independently. Clients MUST NOT offer multiple KeyShareEntry values for the same group. Clients MUST NOT offer any KeyShareEntry values for groups not listed in the client's "supported_groups" extension.

Servers MAY check for violations of these rules and abort the
handshake with an "illegal_parameter" alert if one is violated. In a HelloRetryRequest message, the "extension_data" field of this extension contains a KeyShareHelloRetryRequest value: struct { NamedGroup selected_group; } KeyShareHelloRetryRequest; selected_group: The mutually supported group the server intends to negotiate and is requesting a retried ClientHello/KeyShare for. Upon receipt of this extension in a HelloRetryRequest, the client MUST verify that (1) the selected_group field corresponds to a group which was provided in the "supported_groups" extension in the original ClientHello and (2) the selected_group field does not correspond to a group which was provided in the "key_share" extension in the original ClientHello. If either of these checks fails, then the client MUST abort the handshake with an "illegal_parameter" alert. Otherwise, when sending the new ClientHello, the client MUST Rescorla Standards Track [Page 49]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
replace the original "key_share" extension with one containing only a new KeyShareEntry for the group indicated in the selected_group field of the triggering HelloRetryRequest. In a ServerHello message, the "extension_data" field of this extension contains a KeyShareServerHello value: struct { KeyShareEntry server_share; } KeyShareServerHello; server_share: A single KeyShareEntry value that is in the same group as one of the client's shares. If using (EC)DHE key establishment, servers offer exactly one KeyShareEntry in the ServerHello. This value MUST be in the same

group as the KeyShareEntry value offered by the client that the
server has selected for the negotiated key exchange. Servers

MUST NOT send a KeyShareEntry for any group not indicated in the
client's "supported_groups" extension and MUST NOT send a KeyShareEntry when using the "psk_ke" PskKeyExchangeMode. If using (EC)DHE key establishment and a HelloRetryRequest containing a "key_share" extension was received by the client, the client MUST

verify that the selected NamedGroup in the ServerHello is the same as
that in the HelloRetryRequest. If this check fails, the client MUST abort the handshake with an "illegal_parameter" alert.

4.2.8.1. Diffie-Hellman Parameters
Diffie-Hellman [DH76] parameters for both clients and servers are encoded in the opaque key_exchange field of a KeyShareEntry in a KeyShare structure. The opaque value contains the Diffie-Hellman public value (Y = g^X mod p) for the specified group (see [RFC7919]

for group definitions) encoded as a big-endian integer and padded to
the left with zeros to the size of p in bytes. Note: For a given Diffie-Hellman group, the padding results in all public keys having the same length. Peers MUST validate each other's public key Y by ensuring that 1 < Y < p-1. This check ensures that the remote peer is properly behaved and isn't forcing the local system into a small subgroup. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 50]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

4.2.8.2. ECDHE Parameters

ECDHE parameters for both clients and servers are encoded in the
opaque key_exchange field of a KeyShareEntry in a KeyShare structure. For secp256r1, secp384r1, and secp521r1, the contents are the serialized value of the following struct: struct { uint8 legacy_form = 4; opaque X[coordinate_length]; opaque Y[coordinate_length]; } UncompressedPointRepresentation; X and Y, respectively, are the binary representations of the x and y values in network byte order. There are no internal length markers,

so each number representation occupies as many octets as implied by
the curve parameters. For P-256, this means that each of X and Y use 32 octets, padded on the left by zeros if necessary. For P-384, they take 48 octets each. For P-521, they take 66 octets each. For the curves secp256r1, secp384r1, and secp521r1, peers MUST validate each other's public value Q by ensuring that the point is a valid point on the elliptic curve. The appropriate validation procedures are defined in Section 4.3.7 of [ECDSA] and alternatively in Section 5.6.2.3 of [KEYAGREEMENT]. This process consists of three steps: (1) verify that Q is not the point at infinity (O), (2) verify that for Q = (x, y) both integers x and y are in the correct interval, and (3) ensure that (x, y) is a correct solution to the elliptic curve equation. For these curves, implementors do not need to verify membership in the correct subgroup. For X25519 and X448, the contents of the public value are the byte

string inputs and outputs of the corresponding functions defined in
[RFC7748]: 32 bytes for X25519 and 56 bytes for X448. Note: Versions of TLS prior to 1.3 permitted point format negotiation; TLS 1.3 removes this feature in favor of a single point format for each curve.

4.2.9. Pre-Shared Key Exchange Modes
In order to use PSKs, clients MUST also send a "psk_key_exchange_modes" extension. The semantics of this extension are that the client only supports the use of PSKs with these modes,

which restricts both the use of PSKs offered in this ClientHello and
those which the server might supply via NewSessionTicket. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 51]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
A client MUST provide a "psk_key_exchange_modes" extension if it offers a "pre_shared_key" extension. If clients offer "pre_shared_key" without a "psk_key_exchange_modes" extension, servers MUST abort the handshake. Servers MUST NOT select a key exchange mode that is not listed by the client. This extension also restricts the modes for use with PSK resumption. Servers SHOULD NOT

send NewSessionTicket with tickets that are not compatible with the
advertised modes; however, if a server does so, the impact will just be that the client's attempts at resumption fail. The server MUST NOT send a "psk_key_exchange_modes" extension. enum { psk_ke(0), psk_dhe_ke(1), (255) } PskKeyExchangeMode; struct { PskKeyExchangeMode ke_modes<1..255>; } PskKeyExchangeModes; psk_ke: PSK-only key establishment. In this mode, the server MUST NOT supply a "key_share" value. psk_dhe_ke: PSK with (EC)DHE key establishment. In this mode, the client and server MUST supply "key_share" values as described in Section 4.2.8.

Any future values that are allocated must ensure that the transmitted

protocol messages unambiguously identify which mode was selected by
the server; at present, this is indicated by the presence of the "key_share" in the ServerHello.

4.2.10. Early Data Indication
When a PSK is used and early data is allowed for that PSK, the client can send Application Data in its first flight of messages. If the client opts to do so, it MUST supply both the "pre_shared_key" and "early_data" extensions. The "extension_data" field of this extension contains an "EarlyDataIndication" value. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 52]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
struct {} Empty; struct { select (Handshake.msg_type) { case new_session_ticket: uint32 max_early_data_size; case client_hello: Empty; case encrypted_extensions: Empty; }; } EarlyDataIndication; See Section 4.6.1 for details regarding the use of the max_early_data_size field. The parameters for the 0-RTT data (version, symmetric cipher suite, Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) [RFC7301] protocol, etc.) are those associated with the PSK in use. For externally provisioned PSKs, the associated values are those provisioned along with the key. For PSKs established via a NewSessionTicket message,

the associated values are those which were negotiated in the
connection which established the PSK. The PSK used to encrypt the early data MUST be the first PSK listed in the client's "pre_shared_key" extension. For PSKs provisioned via NewSessionTicket, a server MUST validate

that the ticket age for the selected PSK identity (computed by
subtracting ticket_age_add from PskIdentity.obfuscated_ticket_age modulo 2^32) is within a small tolerance of the time since the ticket was issued (see Section 8). If it is not, the server SHOULD proceed with the handshake but reject 0-RTT, and SHOULD NOT take any other action that assumes that this ClientHello is fresh. 0-RTT messages sent in the first flight have the same (encrypted)

content types as messages of the same type sent in other flights
(handshake and application_data) but are protected under different keys. After receiving the server's Finished message, if the server has accepted early data, an EndOfEarlyData message will be sent to indicate the key change. This message will be encrypted with the 0-RTT traffic keys. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 53]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
A server which receives an "early_data" extension MUST behave in one of three ways:

• Ignore the extension and return a regular 1-RTT response. The

server then skips past early data by attempting to deprotect
received records using the handshake traffic key, discarding

records which fail deprotection (up to the configured
max_early_data_size). Once a record is deprotected successfully, it is treated as the start of the client's second flight and the server proceeds as with an ordinary 1-RTT handshake.

• Request that the client send another ClientHello by responding
  with a HelloRetryRequest. A client MUST NOT include the "early_data" extension in its followup ClientHello. The server

then ignores early data by skipping all records with an external
content type of "application_data" (indicating that they are encrypted), up to the configured max_early_data_size.

• Return its own "early_data" extension in EncryptedExtensions,
  indicating that it intends to process the early data. It is not

possible for the server to accept only a subset of the early data
messages. Even though the server sends a message accepting early data, the actual early data itself may already be in flight by the time the server generates this message. In order to accept early data, the server MUST have accepted a PSK cipher suite and selected the first key offered in the client's "pre_shared_key" extension. In addition, it MUST verify that the

following values are the same as those associated with the
selected PSK:

• The TLS version number
• The selected cipher suite
• The selected ALPN [RFC7301] protocol, if any

These requirements are a superset of those needed to perform a 1-RTT
handshake using the PSK in question. For externally established PSKs, the associated values are those provisioned along with the key. For PSKs established via a NewSessionTicket message, the associated

values are those negotiated in the connection during which the ticket
was established. Future extensions MUST define their interaction with 0-RTT. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 54]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
If any of these checks fail, the server MUST NOT respond with the

extension and must discard all the first-flight data using one of the

first two mechanisms listed above (thus falling back to 1-RTT or
2-RTT). If the client attempts a 0-RTT handshake but the server rejects it, the server will generally not have the 0-RTT record

protection keys and must instead use trial decryption (either with

the 1-RTT handshake keys or by looking for a cleartext ClientHello in
the case of a HelloRetryRequest) to find the first non-0-RTT message. If the server chooses to accept the "early_data" extension, then it

MUST comply with the same error-handling requirements specified for
all records when processing early data records. Specifically, if the

server fails to decrypt a 0-RTT record following an accepted
"early_data" extension, it MUST terminate the connection with a "bad_record_mac" alert as per Section 5.2. If the server rejects the "early_data" extension, the client

application MAY opt to retransmit the Application Data previously
sent in early data once the handshake has been completed. Note that

automatic retransmission of early data could result in incorrect
assumptions regarding the status of the connection. For instance,

when the negotiated connection selects a different ALPN protocol from
what was used for the early data, an application might need to construct different messages. Similarly, if early data assumes anything about the connection state, it might be sent in error after the handshake completes. A TLS implementation SHOULD NOT automatically resend early data;

applications are in a better position to decide when retransmission
is appropriate. A TLS implementation MUST NOT automatically resend

early data unless the negotiated connection selects the same ALPN
protocol.

4.2.11. Pre-Shared Key Extension
The "pre_shared_key" extension is used to negotiate the identity of

the pre-shared key to be used with a given handshake in association
with PSK key establishment. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 55]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
The "extension_data" field of this extension contains a "PreSharedKeyExtension" value: 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; identity: A label for a key. For instance, a ticket (as defined in

Appendix B.3.4) or a label for a pre-shared key established
externally. obfuscated_ticket_age: An obfuscated version of the age of the key. Section 4.2.11.1 describes how to form this value for identities established via the NewSessionTicket message. For identities established externally, an obfuscated_ticket_age of 0 SHOULD be used, and servers MUST ignore the value. identities: A list of the identities that the client is willing to negotiate with the server. If sent alongside the "early_data" extension (see Section 4.2.10), the first identity is the one used for 0-RTT data. binders: A series of HMAC values, one for each value in the identities list and in the same order, computed as described below. selected_identity: The server's chosen identity expressed as a (0-based) index into the identities in the client's list. Each PSK is associated with a single Hash algorithm. For PSKs established via the ticket mechanism (Section 4.6.1), this is the KDF Hash algorithm on the connection where the ticket was established. For externally established PSKs, the Hash algorithm MUST be set when Rescorla Standards Track [Page 56]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

the PSK is established or default to SHA-256 if no such algorithm is
defined. The server MUST ensure that it selects a compatible PSK (if any) and cipher suite. In TLS versions prior to TLS 1.3, the Server Name Identification (SNI) value was intended to be associated with the session (Section 3 of [RFC6066]), with the server being required to enforce that the SNI

value associated with the session matches the one specified in the
resumption handshake. However, in reality the implementations were not consistent on which of two supplied SNI values they would use,

leading to the consistency requirement being de facto enforced by the
clients. In TLS 1.3, the SNI value is always explicitly specified in the resumption handshake, and there is no need for the server to associate an SNI value with the ticket. Clients, however, SHOULD

store the SNI with the PSK to fulfill the requirements of
Section 4.6.1. Implementor's note: When session resumption is the primary use case of PSKs, the most straightforward way to implement the PSK/cipher

suite matching requirements is to negotiate the cipher suite first
and then exclude any incompatible PSKs. Any unknown PSKs (e.g., ones

not in the PSK database or encrypted with an unknown key) SHOULD
simply be ignored. If no acceptable PSKs are found, the server SHOULD perform a non-PSK handshake if possible. If backward compatibility is important, client-provided, externally established PSKs SHOULD influence cipher suite selection. Prior to accepting PSK key establishment, the server MUST validate the corresponding binder value (see Section 4.2.11.2 below). If this value is not present or does not validate, the server MUST abort the handshake. Servers SHOULD NOT attempt to validate multiple binders; rather, they SHOULD select a single PSK and validate solely the binder that corresponds to that PSK. See Section 8.2 and

Appendix E.6 for the security rationale for this requirement. In
order to accept PSK key establishment, the server sends a "pre_shared_key" extension indicating the selected identity. Clients MUST verify that the server's selected_identity is within the range supplied by the client, that the server selected a cipher suite indicating a Hash associated with the PSK, and that a server "key_share" extension is present if required by the ClientHello "psk_key_exchange_modes" extension. If these values are not consistent, the client MUST abort the handshake with an "illegal_parameter" alert. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 57]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
If the server supplies an "early_data" extension, the client MUST verify that the server's selected_identity is 0. If any other value is returned, the client MUST abort the handshake with an "illegal_parameter" alert. The "pre_shared_key" extension MUST be the last extension in the ClientHello (this facilitates implementation as described below).

Servers MUST check that it is the last extension and otherwise fail
the handshake with an "illegal_parameter" alert.

4.2.11.1. Ticket Age
The client's view of the age of a ticket is the time since the receipt of the NewSessionTicket message. Clients MUST NOT attempt to use tickets which have ages greater than the "ticket_lifetime" value which was provided with the ticket. The "obfuscated_ticket_age"

field of each PskIdentity contains an obfuscated version of the

ticket age formed by taking the age in milliseconds and adding the
"ticket_age_add" value that was included with the ticket (see Section 4.6.1), modulo 2^32. This addition prevents passive observers from correlating connections unless tickets are reused. Note that the "ticket_lifetime" field in the NewSessionTicket message is in seconds but the "obfuscated_ticket_age" is in milliseconds. Because ticket lifetimes are restricted to a week, 32 bits is enough to represent any plausible age, even in milliseconds.

4.2.11.2. PSK Binder

The PSK binder value forms a binding between a PSK and the current
handshake, as well as a binding between the handshake in which the

PSK was generated (if via a NewSessionTicket message) and the current
handshake. Each entry in the binders list is computed as an HMAC over a transcript hash (see Section 4.4.1) containing a partial ClientHello up to and including the PreSharedKeyExtension.identities field. That is, it includes all of the ClientHello but not the binders list itself. The length fields for the message (including the overall length, the length of the extensions block, and the length of the "pre_shared_key" extension) are all set as if binders of the correct lengths were present.

The PskBinderEntry is computed in the same way as the Finished
message (Section 4.4.4) but with the BaseKey being the binder_key

derived via the key schedule from the corresponding PSK which is
being offered (see Section 7.1). Rescorla Standards Track [Page 58]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
If the handshake includes a HelloRetryRequest, the initial

ClientHello and HelloRetryRequest are included in the transcript
along with the new ClientHello. For instance, if the client sends ClientHello1, its binder will be computed over:

Transcript-Hash(Truncate(ClientHello1))
Where Truncate() removes the binders list from the ClientHello.

If the server responds with a HelloRetryRequest and the client then
sends ClientHello2, its binder will be computed over: Transcript-Hash(ClientHello1, HelloRetryRequest,

Truncate(ClientHello2))

The full ClientHello1/ClientHello2 is included in all other handshake
hash computations. Note that in the first flight, Truncate(ClientHello1) is hashed directly, but in the second flight, ClientHello1 is hashed and then reinjected as a "message_hash" message, as described in Section 4.4.1.

4.2.11.3. Processing Order
Clients are permitted to "stream" 0-RTT data until they receive the server's Finished, only then sending the EndOfEarlyData message, followed by the rest of the handshake. In order to avoid deadlocks, when accepting "early_data", servers MUST process the client's ClientHello and then immediately send their flight of messages, rather than waiting for the client's EndOfEarlyData message before sending its ServerHello.

4.3. Server Parameters
The next two messages from the server, EncryptedExtensions and CertificateRequest, contain information from the server that determines the rest of the handshake. These messages are encrypted with keys derived from the server_handshake_traffic_secret. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 59]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

4.3.1. Encrypted Extensions
In all handshakes, the server MUST send the EncryptedExtensions message immediately after the ServerHello message. This is the first

message that is encrypted under keys derived from the
server_handshake_traffic_secret.

The EncryptedExtensions message contains extensions that can be
protected, i.e., any which are not needed to establish the

cryptographic context but which are not associated with individual
certificates. The client MUST check EncryptedExtensions for the

presence of any forbidden extensions and if any are found MUST abort
the handshake with an "illegal_parameter" alert. Structure of this message: struct { Extension extensions<0..2^16-1>; } EncryptedExtensions; extensions: A list of extensions. For more information, see the table in Section 4.2.

4.3.2. Certificate Request

A server which is authenticating with a certificate MAY optionally
request a certificate from the client. This message, if sent, MUST follow EncryptedExtensions. Structure of this message: struct { opaque certificate_request_context<0..2^8-1>; Extension extensions<2..2^16-1>; } CertificateRequest; Rescorla Standards Track [Page 60]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
certificate_request_context: An opaque string which identifies the certificate request and which will be echoed in the client's Certificate message. The certificate_request_context MUST be

unique within the scope of this connection (thus preventing replay
of client CertificateVerify messages). This field SHALL be zero

length unless used for the post-handshake authentication exchanges
described in Section 4.6.2. When requesting post-handshake authentication, the server SHOULD make the context unpredictable to the client (e.g., by randomly generating it) in order to prevent an attacker who has temporary access to the client's private key from pre-computing valid CertificateVerify messages. extensions: A set of extensions describing the parameters of the certificate being requested. The "signature_algorithms" extension MUST be specified, and other extensions may optionally be included if defined for this message. Clients MUST ignore unrecognized extensions. In prior versions of TLS, the CertificateRequest message carried a

list of signature algorithms and certificate authorities which the
server would accept. In TLS 1.3, the former is expressed by sending the "signature_algorithms" and optionally "signature_algorithms_cert" extensions. The latter is expressed by sending the "certificate_authorities" extension (see Section 4.2.4).

Servers which are authenticating with a PSK MUST NOT send the
CertificateRequest message in the main handshake, though they MAY send it in post-handshake authentication (see Section 4.6.2) provided that the client has sent the "post_handshake_auth" extension (see Section 4.2.6).

4.4. Authentication Messages
As discussed in Section 2, TLS generally uses a common set of messages for authentication, key confirmation, and handshake integrity: Certificate, CertificateVerify, and Finished. (The PSK binders also perform key confirmation, in a similar fashion.) These

three messages are always sent as the last messages in their
handshake flight. The Certificate and CertificateVerify messages are only sent under certain circumstances, as defined below. The Finished message is always sent as part of the Authentication Block.

These messages are encrypted under keys derived from the
[sender]_handshake_traffic_secret. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 61]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

The computations for the Authentication messages all uniformly take
the following inputs:

• The certificate and signing key to be used.
• A Handshake Context consisting of the set of messages to be
  included in the transcript hash.
• A Base Key to be used to compute a MAC key.
  Based on these inputs, the messages then contain: Certificate: The certificate to be used for authentication, and any supporting certificates in the chain. Note that certificate-based

client authentication is not available in PSK handshake flows
(including 0-RTT). CertificateVerify: A signature over the value Transcript-Hash(Handshake Context, Certificate). Finished: A MAC over the value Transcript-Hash(Handshake Context, Certificate, CertificateVerify) using a MAC key derived from the Base Key.

The following table defines the Handshake Context and MAC Base Key
for each scenario:
+-----------+-------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Mode | Handshake Context | Base Key |
+-----------+-------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Server | ClientHello ... later | server_handshake_traffic_ |
| | of EncryptedExtensions/ | secret |
| | CertificateRequest | |
| | | |
| Client | ClientHello ... later | client_handshake_traffic_ |
| | of server | secret |
| | Finished/EndOfEarlyData | |
| | | |
| Post- | ClientHello ... client | client_application_traffic_ |
| Handshake | Finished + | secret_N |
| | CertificateRequest | |
+-----------+-------------------------+-----------------------------+
Rescorla Standards Track [Page 62]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

4.4.1. The Transcript Hash

Many of the cryptographic computations in TLS make use of a
transcript hash. This value is computed by hashing the concatenation of each included handshake message, including the handshake message header carrying the handshake message type and length fields, but not including record layer headers. I.e., Transcript-Hash(M1, M2, ... Mn) = Hash(M1 || M2 || ... || Mn) As an exception to this general rule, when the server responds to a ClientHello with a HelloRetryRequest, the value of ClientHello1 is

replaced with a special synthetic handshake message of handshake type
"message_hash" containing Hash(ClientHello1). I.e., Transcript-Hash(ClientHello1, HelloRetryRequest, ... Mn) = Hash(message_hash || /* Handshake type / 00 00 Hash.length || / Handshake message length (bytes) / Hash(ClientHello1) || / Hash of ClientHello1 */ HelloRetryRequest || ... || Mn)

The reason for this construction is to allow the server to do a

stateless HelloRetryRequest by storing just the hash of ClientHello1
in the cookie, rather than requiring it to export the entire intermediate hash state (see Section 4.2.2). For concreteness, the transcript hash is always taken from the following sequence of handshake messages, starting at the first ClientHello and including only those messages that were sent: ClientHello, HelloRetryRequest, ClientHello, ServerHello, EncryptedExtensions, server CertificateRequest, server Certificate, server CertificateVerify, server Finished, EndOfEarlyData, client Certificate, client CertificateVerify, client Finished. In general, implementations can implement the transcript by keeping a running transcript hash value based on the negotiated hash. Note, however, that subsequent post-handshake authentications do not include each other, just the messages through the end of the main handshake. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 63]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

4.4.2. Certificate
This message conveys the endpoint's certificate chain to the peer.

The server MUST send a Certificate message whenever the agreed-upon

key exchange method uses certificates for authentication (this

includes all key exchange methods defined in this document
except PSK).

The client MUST send a Certificate message if and only if the server

has requested client authentication via a CertificateRequest message
(Section 4.3.2). If the server requests client authentication but no suitable certificate is available, the client MUST send a Certificate message containing no certificates (i.e., with the "certificate_list" field having length 0). A Finished message MUST be sent regardless of whether the Certificate message is empty. Structure of this message: enum { X509(0), RawPublicKey(2), (255) } CertificateType; struct { select (certificate_type) { case RawPublicKey: /* From RFC 7250 ASN.1_subjectPublicKeyInfo */ opaque ASN1_subjectPublicKeyInfo<1..2^24-1>; case X509: opaque cert_data<1..2^24-1>; }; Extension extensions<0..2^16-1>; } CertificateEntry; struct { opaque certificate_request_context<0..2^8-1>; CertificateEntry certificate_list<0..2^24-1>; } Certificate; Rescorla Standards Track [Page 64]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
certificate_request_context: If this message is in response to a CertificateRequest, the value of certificate_request_context in that message. Otherwise (in the case of server authentication), this field SHALL be zero length. certificate_list: A sequence (chain) of CertificateEntry structures, each containing a single certificate and set of extensions. extensions: A set of extension values for the CertificateEntry. The "Extension" format is defined in Section 4.2. Valid extensions

for server certificates at present include the OCSP Status
extension [RFC6066] and the SignedCertificateTimestamp extension [RFC6962]; future extensions may be defined for this message as well. Extensions in the Certificate message from the server MUST correspond to ones from the ClientHello message. Extensions in

the Certificate message from the client MUST correspond to
extensions in the CertificateRequest message from the server. If an extension applies to the entire chain, it SHOULD be included in the first CertificateEntry.

If the corresponding certificate type extension
("server_certificate_type" or "client_certificate_type") was not negotiated in EncryptedExtensions, or the X.509 certificate type was negotiated, then each CertificateEntry contains a DER-encoded X.509 certificate. The sender's certificate MUST come in the first CertificateEntry in the list. Each following certificate SHOULD directly certify the one immediately preceding it. Because

certificate validation requires that trust anchors be distributed
independently, a certificate that specifies a trust anchor MAY be omitted from the chain, provided that supported peers are known to possess any omitted certificates. Note: Prior to TLS 1.3, "certificate_list" ordering required each certificate to certify the one immediately preceding it; however, some implementations allowed some flexibility. Servers sometimes

send both a current and deprecated intermediate for transitional
purposes, and others are simply configured incorrectly, but these cases can nonetheless be validated properly. For maximum compatibility, all implementations SHOULD be prepared to handle

potentially extraneous certificates and arbitrary orderings from any
TLS version, with the exception of the end-entity certificate which MUST be first. If the RawPublicKey certificate type was negotiated, then the certificate_list MUST contain no more than one CertificateEntry, which contains an ASN1_subjectPublicKeyInfo value as defined in [RFC7250], Section 3. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 65]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
The OpenPGP certificate type [RFC6091] MUST NOT be used with TLS 1.3. The server's certificate_list MUST always be non-empty. A client will send an empty certificate_list if it does not have an appropriate certificate to send in response to the server's authentication request.

4.4.2.1. OCSP Status and SCT Extensions
[RFC6066] and [RFC6961] provide extensions to negotiate the server sending OCSP responses to the client. In TLS 1.2 and below, the

server replies with an empty extension to indicate negotiation of

this extension and the OCSP information is carried in a
CertificateStatus message. In TLS 1.3, the server's OCSP information

is carried in an extension in the CertificateEntry containing the
associated certificate. Specifically, the body of the "status_request" extension from the server MUST be a CertificateStatus structure as defined in [RFC6066], which is interpreted as defined in [RFC6960]. Note: The status_request_v2 extension [RFC6961] is deprecated. TLS 1.3 servers MUST NOT act upon its presence or information in it when processing ClientHello messages; in particular, they MUST NOT send the status_request_v2 extension in the EncryptedExtensions, CertificateRequest, or Certificate messages. TLS 1.3 servers MUST be able to process ClientHello messages that include it, as it MAY be sent by clients that wish to use it in earlier protocol versions.

A server MAY request that a client present an OCSP response with its
certificate by sending an empty "status_request" extension in its CertificateRequest message. If the client opts to send an OCSP response, the body of its "status_request" extension MUST be a CertificateStatus structure as defined in [RFC6066]. Similarly, [RFC6962] provides a mechanism for a server to send a

Signed Certificate Timestamp (SCT) as an extension in the ServerHello
in TLS 1.2 and below. In TLS 1.3, the server's SCT information is carried in an extension in the CertificateEntry. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 66]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

4.4.2.2. Server Certificate Selection
The following rules apply to the certificates sent by the server:

• The certificate type MUST be X.509v3 [RFC5280], unless explicitly
  negotiated otherwise (e.g., [RFC7250]).
• The server's end-entity certificate's public key (and associated

restrictions) MUST be compatible with the selected authentication
algorithm from the client's "signature_algorithms" extension (currently RSA, ECDSA, or EdDSA).

• The certificate MUST allow the key to be used for signing (i.e.,

the digitalSignature bit MUST be set if the Key Usage extension is
present) with a signature scheme indicated in the client's "signature_algorithms"/"signature_algorithms_cert" extensions (see Section 4.2.3).

• The "server_name" [RFC6066] and "certificate_authorities"
  extensions are used to guide certificate selection. As servers MAY require the presence of the "server_name" extension, clients SHOULD send this extension, when applicable.

All certificates provided by the server MUST be signed by a signature

algorithm advertised by the client if it is able to provide such a
chain (see Section 4.2.3). Certificates that are self-signed or

certificates that are expected to be trust anchors are not validated
as part of the chain and therefore MAY be signed with any algorithm.

If the server cannot produce a certificate chain that is signed only
via the indicated supported algorithms, then it SHOULD continue the

handshake by sending the client a certificate chain of its choice

that may include algorithms that are not known to be supported by the
client. This fallback chain SHOULD NOT use the deprecated SHA-1 hash algorithm in general, but MAY do so if the client's advertisement permits it, and MUST NOT do so otherwise.

If the client cannot construct an acceptable chain using the provided
certificates and decides to abort the handshake, then it MUST abort

the handshake with an appropriate certificate-related alert (by
default, "unsupported_certificate"; see Section 6.2 for more information). If the server has multiple certificates, it chooses one of them based on the above-mentioned criteria (in addition to other criteria, such as transport-layer endpoint, local configuration, and preferences). Rescorla Standards Track [Page 67]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

4.4.2.3. Client Certificate Selection
The following rules apply to certificates sent by the client:

• The certificate type MUST be X.509v3 [RFC5280], unless explicitly
  negotiated otherwise (e.g., [RFC7250]).
• If the "certificate_authorities" extension in the
  CertificateRequest message was present, at least one of the

certificates in the certificate chain SHOULD be issued by one of
the listed CAs.

• The certificates MUST be signed using an acceptable signature
  algorithm, as described in Section 4.3.2. Note that this relaxes

the constraints on certificate-signing algorithms found in prior
versions of TLS.

• If the CertificateRequest message contained a non-empty
  "oid_filters" extension, the end-entity certificate MUST match the extension OIDs that are recognized by the client, as described in Section 4.2.5.

4.4.2.4. Receiving a Certificate Message
In general, detailed certificate validation procedures are out of scope for TLS (see [RFC5280]). This section provides TLS-specific requirements. If the server supplies an empty Certificate message, the client MUST abort the handshake with a "decode_error" alert. If the client does not send any certificates (i.e., it sends an empty Certificate message), the server MAY at its discretion either

continue the handshake without client authentication or abort the
handshake with a "certificate_required" alert. Also, if some aspect of the certificate chain was unacceptable (e.g., it was not signed by a known, trusted CA), the server MAY at its discretion either

continue the handshake (considering the client unauthenticated) or
abort the handshake.

Any endpoint receiving any certificate which it would need to

validate using any signature algorithm using an MD5 hash MUST abort
the handshake with a "bad_certificate" alert. SHA-1 is deprecated,

and it is RECOMMENDED that any endpoint receiving any certificate

which it would need to validate using any signature algorithm using a
SHA-1 hash abort the handshake with a "bad_certificate" alert. For clarity, this means that endpoints can accept these algorithms for certificates that are self-signed or are trust anchors. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 68]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

All endpoints are RECOMMENDED to transition to SHA-256 or better as

soon as possible to maintain interoperability with implementations
currently in the process of phasing out SHA-1 support.

Note that a certificate containing a key for one signature algorithm
MAY be signed using a different signature algorithm (for instance, an RSA key signed with an ECDSA key).

4.4.3. Certificate Verify

This message is used to provide explicit proof that an endpoint
possesses the private key corresponding to its certificate. The

CertificateVerify message also provides integrity for the handshake
up to this point. Servers MUST send this message when authenticating via a certificate. Clients MUST send this message whenever authenticating via a certificate (i.e., when the Certificate message is non-empty). When sent, this message MUST appear immediately after

the Certificate message and immediately prior to the Finished
message. Structure of this message: struct { SignatureScheme algorithm; opaque signature<0..2^16-1>; } CertificateVerify;

The algorithm field specifies the signature algorithm used (see
Section 4.2.3 for the definition of this type). The signature is a digital signature using that algorithm. The content that is covered under the signature is the hash output as described in Section 4.4.1, namely: Transcript-Hash(Handshake Context, Certificate) The digital signature is then computed over the concatenation of:

• A string that consists of octet 32 (0x20) repeated 64 times
• The context string
• A single 0 byte which serves as the separator
• The content to be signed
  Rescorla Standards Track [Page 69]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

This structure is intended to prevent an attack on previous versions

of TLS in which the ServerKeyExchange format meant that attackers

could obtain a signature of a message with a chosen 32-byte prefix
(ClientHello.random). The initial 64-byte pad clears that prefix along with the server-controlled ServerHello.random.

The context string for a server signature is
"TLS 1.3, server CertificateVerify". The context string for a client signature is "TLS 1.3, client CertificateVerify". It is

used to provide separation between signatures made in different
contexts, helping against potential cross-protocol attacks. For example, if the transcript hash was 32 bytes of 01 (this length would make sense for SHA-256), the content covered by the digital signature for a server CertificateVerify would be: 2020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020 2020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020 544c5320312e332c207365727665722043657274696669636174655665726966 79 00 0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101 On the sender side, the process for computing the signature field of the CertificateVerify message takes as input:

• The content covered by the digital signature
• The private signing key corresponding to the certificate sent in

the previous message
If the CertificateVerify message is sent by a server, the signature algorithm MUST be one offered in the client's "signature_algorithms"

extension unless no valid certificate chain can be produced without
unsupported algorithms (see Section 4.2.3). If sent by a client, the signature algorithm used in the signature MUST be one of those present in the supported_signature_algorithms field of the "signature_algorithms" extension in the CertificateRequest message. In addition, the signature algorithm MUST be compatible with the key in the sender's end-entity certificate. RSA signatures MUST use an RSASSA-PSS algorithm, regardless of whether RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 algorithms appear in "signature_algorithms". The SHA-1 algorithm MUST NOT be used in any signatures of CertificateVerify messages. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 70]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

All SHA-1 signature algorithms in this specification are defined

solely for use in legacy certificates and are not valid for
CertificateVerify signatures.

The receiver of a CertificateVerify message MUST verify the signature
field. The verification process takes as input:

• The content covered by the digital signature
• The public key contained in the end-entity certificate found in

the associated Certificate message

• The digital signature received in the signature field of the

CertificateVerify message
If the verification fails, the receiver MUST terminate the handshake with a "decrypt_error" alert.

4.4.4. Finished

The Finished message is the final message in the Authentication
Block. It is essential for providing authentication of the handshake and of the computed keys.

Recipients of Finished messages MUST verify that the contents are

correct and if incorrect MUST terminate the connection with a
"decrypt_error" alert.

Once a side has sent its Finished message and has received and
validated the Finished message from its peer, it may begin to send and receive Application Data over the connection. There are two

settings in which it is permitted to send data prior to receiving the
peer's Finished:

1. Clients sending 0-RTT data as described in Section 4.2.10.

2. Servers MAY send data after sending their first flight, but
   because the handshake is not yet complete, they have no assurance of either the peer's identity or its liveness (i.e., the ClientHello might have been replayed). Rescorla Standards Track [Page 71]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

The key used to compute the Finished message is computed from the
Base Key defined in Section 4.4 using HKDF (see Section 7.1). Specifically: finished_key = HKDF-Expand-Label(BaseKey, "finished", "", Hash.length) Structure of this message: struct { opaque verify_data[Hash.length]; } Finished; The verify_data value is computed as follows: verify_data = HMAC(finished_key, Transcript-Hash(Handshake Context, Certificate*, CertificateVerify*))

• Only included if present.
  HMAC [RFC2104] uses the Hash algorithm for the handshake. As noted above, the HMAC input can generally be implemented by a running hash, i.e., just the handshake hash at this point. In previous versions of TLS, the verify_data was always 12 octets long. In TLS 1.3, it is the size of the HMAC output for the Hash used for the handshake. Note: Alerts and any other non-handshake record types are not handshake messages and are not included in the hash computations.

Any records following a Finished message MUST be encrypted under the
appropriate application traffic key as described in Section 7.2. In particular, this includes any alerts sent by the server in response to client Certificate and CertificateVerify messages.

4.5. End of Early Data
struct {} EndOfEarlyData; If the server sent an "early_data" extension in EncryptedExtensions,

the client MUST send an EndOfEarlyData message after receiving the
server Finished. If the server does not send an "early_data" extension in EncryptedExtensions, then the client MUST NOT send an EndOfEarlyData message. This message indicates that all 0-RTT application_data messages, if any, have been transmitted and that the Rescorla Standards Track [Page 72]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
following records are protected under handshake traffic keys. Servers MUST NOT send this message, and clients receiving it MUST terminate the connection with an "unexpected_message" alert. This

message is encrypted under keys derived from the
client_early_traffic_secret.

4.6. Post-Handshake Messages
TLS also allows other messages to be sent after the main handshake.

These messages use a handshake content type and are encrypted under
the appropriate application traffic key.

4.6.1. New Session Ticket Message

At any time after the server has received the client Finished
message, it MAY send a NewSessionTicket message. This message

creates a unique association between the ticket value and a secret
PSK derived from the resumption master secret (see Section 7).

The client MAY use this PSK for future handshakes by including the
ticket value in the "pre_shared_key" extension in its ClientHello (Section 4.2.11). Servers MAY send multiple tickets on a single connection, either immediately after each other or after specific events (see Appendix C.4). For instance, the server might send a new

ticket after post-handshake authentication in order to encapsulate
the additional client authentication state. Multiple tickets are useful for clients for a variety of purposes, including:

• Opening multiple parallel HTTP connections.
• Performing connection racing across interfaces and address
  families via (for example) Happy Eyeballs [RFC8305] or related techniques.

Any ticket MUST only be resumed with a cipher suite that has the same
KDF hash algorithm as that used to establish the original connection.

Clients MUST only resume if the new SNI value is valid for the server

certificate presented in the original session and SHOULD only resume
if the SNI value matches the one used in the original session. The latter is a performance optimization: normally, there is no reason to

expect that different servers covered by a single certificate would
be able to accept each other's tickets; hence, attempting resumption in that case would waste a single-use ticket. If such an indication is provided (externally or by any other means), clients MAY resume with a different SNI value. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 73]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
On resumption, if reporting an SNI value to the calling application,

implementations MUST use the value sent in the resumption ClientHello
rather than the value sent in the previous session. Note that if a

server implementation declines all PSK identities with different SNI
values, these two values are always the same. Note: Although the resumption master secret depends on the client's second flight, a server which does not request client authentication

MAY compute the remainder of the transcript independently and then

send a NewSessionTicket immediately upon sending its Finished rather
than waiting for the client Finished. This might be appropriate in

cases where the client is expected to open multiple TLS connections

in parallel and would benefit from the reduced overhead of a
resumption handshake, for example. struct { uint32 ticket_lifetime; uint32 ticket_age_add; opaque ticket_nonce<0..255>; opaque ticket<1..2^16-1>; Extension extensions<0..2^16-2>; } NewSessionTicket; ticket_lifetime: Indicates the lifetime in seconds as a 32-bit

unsigned integer in network byte order from the time of ticket
issuance. Servers MUST NOT use any value greater than 604800 seconds (7 days). The value of zero indicates that the ticket should be discarded immediately. Clients MUST NOT cache tickets for longer than 7 days, regardless of the ticket_lifetime, and MAY delete tickets earlier based on local policy. A server

MAY treat a ticket as valid for a shorter period of time than what
is stated in the ticket_lifetime. ticket_age_add: A securely generated, random 32-bit value that is

used to obscure the age of the ticket that the client includes in
the "pre_shared_key" extension. The client-side ticket age is added to this value modulo 2^32 to obtain the value that is transmitted by the client. The server MUST generate a fresh value for each ticket it sends. ticket_nonce: A per-ticket value that is unique across all tickets issued on this connection. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 74]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
ticket: The value of the ticket to be used as the PSK identity. The ticket itself is an opaque label. It MAY be either a database lookup key or a self-encrypted and self-authenticated value. extensions: A set of extension values for the ticket. The "Extension" format is defined in Section 4.2. Clients MUST ignore unrecognized extensions.

The sole extension currently defined for NewSessionTicket is
"early_data", indicating that the ticket may be used to send 0-RTT data (Section 4.2.10). It contains the following value: max_early_data_size: The maximum amount of 0-RTT data that the client is allowed to send when using this ticket, in bytes. Only Application Data payload (i.e., plaintext but not padding or the inner content type byte) is counted. A server receiving more than max_early_data_size bytes of 0-RTT data SHOULD terminate the connection with an "unexpected_message" alert. Note that servers

that reject early data due to lack of cryptographic material will
be unable to differentiate padding from content, so clients

SHOULD NOT depend on being able to send large quantities of
padding in early data records. The PSK associated with the ticket is computed as: HKDF-Expand-Label(resumption_master_secret, "resumption", ticket_nonce, Hash.length) Because the ticket_nonce value is distinct for each NewSessionTicket message, a different PSK will be derived for each ticket.

Note that in principle it is possible to continue issuing new tickets

which indefinitely extend the lifetime of the keying material

originally derived from an initial non-PSK handshake (which was most
likely tied to the peer's certificate). It is RECOMMENDED that

implementations place limits on the total lifetime of such keying
material; these limits should take into account the lifetime of the peer's certificate, the likelihood of intervening revocation, and the time since the peer's online CertificateVerify signature.

4.6.2. Post-Handshake Authentication
When the client has sent the "post_handshake_auth" extension (see Section 4.2.6), a server MAY request client authentication at any

time after the handshake has completed by sending a
CertificateRequest message. The client MUST respond with the appropriate Authentication messages (see Section 4.4). If the client chooses to authenticate, it MUST send Certificate, CertificateVerify, Rescorla Standards Track [Page 75]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
and Finished. If it declines, it MUST send a Certificate message containing no certificates followed by Finished. All of the client's

messages for a given response MUST appear consecutively on the wire
with no intervening messages of other types.

A client that receives a CertificateRequest message without having
sent the "post_handshake_auth" extension MUST send an "unexpected_message" fatal alert. Note: Because client authentication could involve prompting the user, servers MUST be prepared for some delay, including receiving an

arbitrary number of other messages between sending the
CertificateRequest and receiving a response. In addition, clients

which receive multiple CertificateRequests in close succession MAY

respond to them in a different order than they were received (the
certificate_request_context value allows the server to disambiguate the responses).

4.6.3. Key and Initialization Vector Update

The KeyUpdate handshake message is used to indicate that the sender
is updating its sending cryptographic keys. This message can be sent by either peer after it has sent a Finished message. Implementations

that receive a KeyUpdate message prior to receiving a Finished
message MUST terminate the connection with an "unexpected_message" alert. After sending a KeyUpdate message, the sender SHALL send all its traffic using the next generation of keys, computed as described in Section 7.2. Upon receiving a KeyUpdate, the receiver MUST update its receiving keys. enum { update_not_requested(0), update_requested(1), (255) } KeyUpdateRequest; struct { KeyUpdateRequest request_update; } KeyUpdate; request_update: Indicates whether the recipient of the KeyUpdate should respond with its own KeyUpdate. If an implementation receives any other value, it MUST terminate the connection with an "illegal_parameter" alert. If the request_update field is set to "update_requested", then the receiver MUST send a KeyUpdate of its own with request_update set to "update_not_requested" prior to sending its next Application Data record. This mechanism allows either side to force an update to the entire connection, but causes an implementation which receives Rescorla Standards Track [Page 76]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

multiple KeyUpdates while it is silent to respond with a single
update. Note that implementations may receive an arbitrary number of messages between sending a KeyUpdate with request_update set to "update_requested" and receiving the peer's KeyUpdate, because those messages may already be in flight. However, because send and receive keys are derived from independent traffic secrets, retaining the

receive traffic secret does not threaten the forward secrecy of data
sent before the sender changed keys.

If implementations independently send their own KeyUpdates with
request_update set to "update_requested" and they cross in flight, then each side will also send a response, with the result that each side increments by two generations.

Both sender and receiver MUST encrypt their KeyUpdate messages with
the old keys. Additionally, both sides MUST enforce that a KeyUpdate

with the old key is received before accepting any messages encrypted
with the new key. Failure to do so may allow message truncation attacks.

5. Record Protocol
   The TLS record protocol takes messages to be transmitted, fragments the data into manageable blocks, protects the records, and transmits the result. Received data is verified, decrypted, reassembled, and then delivered to higher-level clients. TLS records are typed, which allows multiple higher-level protocols to be multiplexed over the same record layer. This document specifies four content types: handshake, application_data, alert, and change_cipher_spec. The change_cipher_spec record is used only for compatibility purposes (see Appendix D.4).

An implementation may receive an unencrypted record of type
change_cipher_spec consisting of the single byte value 0x01 at any

time after the first ClientHello message has been sent or received
and before the peer's Finished message has been received and MUST simply drop it without further processing. Note that this record may

appear at a point at the handshake where the implementation is
expecting protected records, and so it is necessary to detect this condition prior to attempting to deprotect the record. An implementation which receives any other change_cipher_spec value or which receives a protected change_cipher_spec record MUST abort the handshake with an "unexpected_message" alert. If an implementation detects a change_cipher_spec record received before the first ClientHello message or after the peer's Finished message, it MUST be

treated as an unexpected record type (though stateless servers may
not be able to distinguish these cases from allowed cases). Rescorla Standards Track [Page 77]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

Implementations MUST NOT send record types not defined in this
document unless negotiated by some extension. If a TLS implementation receives an unexpected record type, it MUST terminate the connection with an "unexpected_message" alert. New record

content type values are assigned by IANA in the TLS ContentType
registry as described in Section 11.

5.1. Record Layer

The record layer fragments information blocks into TLSPlaintext
records carrying data in chunks of 2^14 bytes or less. Message

boundaries are handled differently depending on the underlying
ContentType. Any future content types MUST specify appropriate rules. Note that these rules are stricter than what was enforced in TLS 1.2.

Handshake messages MAY be coalesced into a single TLSPlaintext record
or fragmented across several records, provided that:

• Handshake messages MUST NOT be interleaved with other record
  types. That is, if a handshake message is split over two or more records, there MUST NOT be any other records between them.
• Handshake messages MUST NOT span key changes. Implementations

MUST verify that all messages immediately preceding a key change
align with a record boundary; if not, then they MUST terminate the connection with an "unexpected_message" alert. Because the ClientHello, EndOfEarlyData, ServerHello, Finished, and KeyUpdate messages can immediately precede a key change, implementations MUST send these messages in alignment with a record boundary.

Implementations MUST NOT send zero-length fragments of Handshake
types, even if those fragments contain padding. Alert messages (Section 6) MUST NOT be fragmented across records, and

multiple alert messages MUST NOT be coalesced into a single
TLSPlaintext record. In other words, a record with an Alert type MUST contain exactly one message. Application Data messages contain data that is opaque to TLS. Application Data messages are always protected. Zero-length fragments of Application Data MAY be sent, as they are potentially useful as a traffic analysis countermeasure. Application Data

fragments MAY be split across multiple records or coalesced into a
single record. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 78]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
enum { invalid(0), change_cipher_spec(20), alert(21), handshake(22), application_data(23), (255) } ContentType; struct { ContentType type; ProtocolVersion legacy_record_version; uint16 length; opaque fragment[TLSPlaintext.length]; } TLSPlaintext; type: The higher-level protocol used to process the enclosed fragment. legacy_record_version: MUST be set to 0x0303 for all records generated by a TLS 1.3 implementation other than an initial ClientHello (i.e., one not generated after a HelloRetryRequest), where it MAY also be 0x0301 for compatibility purposes. This field is deprecated and MUST be ignored for all purposes.

Previous versions of TLS would use other values in this field
under some circumstances. length: The length (in bytes) of the following TLSPlaintext.fragment. The length MUST NOT exceed 2^14 bytes. An

endpoint that receives a record that exceeds this length MUST
terminate the connection with a "record_overflow" alert. fragment: The data being transmitted. This value is transparent and

is treated as an independent block to be dealt with by the higher
level protocol specified by the type field. This document describes TLS 1.3, which uses the version 0x0304. This version value is historical, deriving from the use of 0x0301 for TLS 1.0 and 0x0300 for SSL 3.0. In order to maximize backward compatibility, a record containing an initial ClientHello SHOULD have version 0x0301 (reflecting TLS 1.0) and a record containing a second

ClientHello or a ServerHello MUST have version 0x0303 (reflecting
TLS 1.2). When negotiating prior versions of TLS, endpoints follow the procedure and requirements provided in Appendix D. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 79]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
When record protection has not yet been engaged, TLSPlaintext structures are written directly onto the wire. Once record protection has started, TLSPlaintext records are protected and sent as described in the following section. Note that Application Data

records MUST NOT be written to the wire unprotected (see Section 2
for details).

5.2. Record Payload Protection

The record protection functions translate a TLSPlaintext structure
into a TLSCiphertext structure. The deprotection functions reverse the process. In TLS 1.3, as opposed to previous versions of TLS, all ciphers are modeled as "Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data" (AEAD) [RFC5116]. AEAD functions provide a unified encryption

and authentication operation which turns plaintext into authenticated
ciphertext and back again. Each encrypted record consists of a plaintext header followed by an encrypted body, which itself contains a type and optional padding. struct { opaque content[TLSPlaintext.length]; ContentType type; uint8 zeros[length_of_padding]; } TLSInnerPlaintext; struct { ContentType opaque_type = application_data; /* 23 / ProtocolVersion legacy_record_version = 0x0303; / TLS v1.2 */ uint16 length; opaque encrypted_record[TLSCiphertext.length]; } TLSCiphertext; content: The TLSPlaintext.fragment value, containing the byte encoding of a handshake or an alert message, or the raw bytes of the application's data to send. type: The TLSPlaintext.type value containing the content type of the record. zeros: An arbitrary-length run of zero-valued bytes may appear in the cleartext after the type field. This provides an opportunity

for senders to pad any TLS record by a chosen amount as long as
the total stays within record size limits. See Section 5.4 for more details. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 80]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
opaque_type: The outer opaque_type field of a TLSCiphertext record is always set to the value 23 (application_data) for outward

compatibility with middleboxes accustomed to parsing previous
versions of TLS. The actual content type of the record is found in TLSInnerPlaintext.type after decryption. legacy_record_version: The legacy_record_version field is always 0x0303. TLS 1.3 TLSCiphertexts are not generated until after TLS 1.3 has been negotiated, so there are no historical compatibility concerns where other values might be received. Note that the handshake protocol, including the ClientHello and ServerHello messages, authenticates the protocol version, so this value is redundant. length: The length (in bytes) of the following TLSCiphertext.encrypted_record, which is the sum of the lengths of the content and the padding, plus one for the inner content type, plus any expansion added by the AEAD algorithm. The length MUST NOT exceed 2^14 + 256 bytes. An endpoint that receives a

record that exceeds this length MUST terminate the connection with
a "record_overflow" alert. encrypted_record: The AEAD-encrypted form of the serialized TLSInnerPlaintext structure. AEAD algorithms take as input a single key, a nonce, a plaintext, and "additional data" to be included in the authentication check, as described in Section 2.1 of [RFC5116]. The key is either the client_write_key or the server_write_key, the nonce is derived from the sequence number and the client_write_iv or server_write_iv (see Section 5.3), and the additional data input is the record header. I.e., additional_data = TLSCiphertext.opaque_type || TLSCiphertext.legacy_record_version || TLSCiphertext.length

The plaintext input to the AEAD algorithm is the encoded
TLSInnerPlaintext structure. Derivation of traffic keys is defined in Section 7.3.

The AEAD output consists of the ciphertext output from the AEAD
encryption operation. The length of the plaintext is greater than the corresponding TLSPlaintext.length due to the inclusion of TLSInnerPlaintext.type and any padding supplied by the sender. The

length of the AEAD output will generally be larger than the
plaintext, but by an amount that varies with the AEAD algorithm. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 81]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
Since the ciphers might incorporate padding, the amount of overhead could vary with different lengths of plaintext. Symbolically, AEADEncrypted = AEAD-Encrypt(write_key, nonce, additional_data, plaintext) The encrypted_record field of TLSCiphertext is set to AEADEncrypted. In order to decrypt and verify, the cipher takes as input the key, nonce, additional data, and the AEADEncrypted value. The output is

either the plaintext or an error indicating that the decryption
failed. There is no separate integrity check. Symbolically, plaintext of encrypted_record = AEAD-Decrypt(peer_write_key, nonce, additional_data, AEADEncrypted) If the decryption fails, the receiver MUST terminate the connection with a "bad_record_mac" alert. An AEAD algorithm used in TLS 1.3 MUST NOT produce an expansion greater than 255 octets. An endpoint that receives a record from its peer with TLSCiphertext.length larger than 2^14 + 256 octets MUST terminate the connection with a "record_overflow" alert. This limit is derived from the maximum TLSInnerPlaintext length of 2^14 octets + 1 octet for ContentType + the maximum AEAD expansion of 255 octets.

5.3. Per-Record Nonce

A 64-bit sequence number is maintained separately for reading and
writing records. The appropriate sequence number is incremented by one after reading or writing each record. Each sequence number is

set to zero at the beginning of a connection and whenever the key is
changed; the first record transmitted under a particular traffic key MUST use sequence number 0. Because the size of sequence numbers is 64-bit, they should not wrap. If a TLS implementation would need to wrap a sequence number, it MUST either rekey (Section 4.6.3) or terminate the connection. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 82]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

Each AEAD algorithm will specify a range of possible lengths for the
per-record nonce, from N_MIN bytes to N_MAX bytes of input [RFC5116]. The length of the TLS per-record nonce (iv_length) is set to the larger of 8 bytes and N_MIN for the AEAD algorithm (see [RFC5116], Section 4). An AEAD algorithm where N_MAX is less than 8 bytes MUST NOT be used with TLS. The per-record nonce for the AEAD construction is formed as follows:

1. The 64-bit record sequence number is encoded in network byte
   order and padded to the left with zeros to iv_length.

2. The padded sequence number is XORed with either the static
   client_write_iv or server_write_iv (depending on the role). The resulting quantity (of length iv_length) is used as the per-record nonce. Note: This is a different construction from that in TLS 1.2, which specified a partially explicit nonce.

5.4. Record Padding

All encrypted TLS records can be padded to inflate the size of the
TLSCiphertext. This allows the sender to hide the size of the traffic from an observer. When generating a TLSCiphertext record, implementations MAY choose to pad. An unpadded record is just a record with a padding length of zero. Padding is a string of zero-valued bytes appended to the ContentType field before encryption. Implementations MUST set the padding octets to all zeros before encrypting.

Application Data records may contain a zero-length
TLSInnerPlaintext.content if the sender desires. This permits

generation of plausibly sized cover traffic in contexts where the
presence or absence of activity may be sensitive. Implementations

MUST NOT send Handshake and Alert records that have a zero-length
TLSInnerPlaintext.content; if such a message is received, the

receiving implementation MUST terminate the connection with an
"unexpected_message" alert. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 83]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

The padding sent is automatically verified by the record protection
mechanism; upon successful decryption of a TLSCiphertext.encrypted_record, the receiving implementation scans

the field from the end toward the beginning until it finds a non-zero
octet. This non-zero octet is the content type of the message. This

padding scheme was selected because it allows padding of any

encrypted TLS record by an arbitrary size (from zero up to TLS record
size limits) without introducing new content types. The design also enforces all-zero padding octets, which allows for quick detection of padding errors.

Implementations MUST limit their scanning to the cleartext returned
from the AEAD decryption. If a receiving implementation does not find a non-zero octet in the cleartext, it MUST terminate the connection with an "unexpected_message" alert.

The presence of padding does not change the overall record size
limitations: the full encoded TLSInnerPlaintext MUST NOT exceed 2^14 + 1 octets. If the maximum fragment length is reduced -- as, for example, by the record_size_limit extension from [RFC8449] -- then the reduced limit applies to the full plaintext, including the content type and padding.

Selecting a padding policy that suggests when and how much to pad is
a complex topic and is beyond the scope of this specification. If the application-layer protocol on top of TLS has its own padding, it

may be preferable to pad Application Data TLS records within the
application layer. Padding for encrypted Handshake or Alert records must still be handled at the TLS layer, though. Later documents may

define padding selection algorithms or define a padding policy
request mechanism through TLS extensions or some other means.

5.5. Limits on Key Usage

There are cryptographic limits on the amount of plaintext which can
be safely encrypted under a given set of keys. [AEAD-LIMITS]

provides an analysis of these limits under the assumption that the
underlying primitive (AES or ChaCha20) has no weaknesses. Implementations SHOULD do a key update as described in Section 4.6.3 prior to reaching these limits. For AES-GCM, up to 2^24.5 full-size records (about 24 million) may be

encrypted on a given connection while keeping a safety margin of
approximately 2^-57 for Authenticated Encryption (AE) security. For ChaCha20/Poly1305, the record sequence number would wrap before the safety limit is reached. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 84]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

6. Alert Protocol

TLS provides an Alert content type to indicate closure information
and errors. Like other messages, alert messages are encrypted as specified by the current connection state.

Alert messages convey a description of the alert and a legacy field

that conveyed the severity level of the message in previous versions
of TLS. Alerts are divided into two classes: closure alerts and error alerts. In TLS 1.3, the severity is implicit in the type of alert being sent, and the "level" field can safely be ignored. The "close_notify" alert is used to indicate orderly closure of one direction of the connection. Upon receiving such an alert, the TLS implementation SHOULD indicate end-of-data to the application.

Error alerts indicate abortive closure of the connection (see
Section 6.2). Upon receiving an error alert, the TLS implementation

SHOULD indicate an error to the application and MUST NOT allow any
further data to be sent or received on the connection. Servers and

clients MUST forget the secret values and keys established in failed
connections, with the exception of the PSKs associated with session tickets, which SHOULD be discarded if possible. All the alerts listed in Section 6.2 MUST be sent with AlertLevel=fatal and MUST be treated as error alerts when received regardless of the AlertLevel in the message. Unknown Alert types MUST be treated as error alerts. Note: TLS defines two generic alerts (see Section 6) to use upon failure to parse a message. Peers which receive a message which cannot be parsed according to the syntax (e.g., have a length

extending beyond the message boundary or contain an out-of-range
length) MUST terminate the connection with a "decode_error" alert.

Peers which receive a message which is syntactically correct but
semantically invalid (e.g., a DHE share of p - 1, or an invalid enum) MUST terminate the connection with an "illegal_parameter" alert. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 85]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
enum { warning(1), fatal(2), (255) } AlertLevel; enum { close_notify(0), unexpected_message(10), bad_record_mac(20), record_overflow(22), handshake_failure(40), bad_certificate(42), unsupported_certificate(43), certificate_revoked(44), certificate_expired(45), certificate_unknown(46), illegal_parameter(47), unknown_ca(48), access_denied(49), decode_error(50), decrypt_error(51), protocol_version(70), insufficient_security(71), internal_error(80), inappropriate_fallback(86), user_canceled(90), missing_extension(109), unsupported_extension(110), unrecognized_name(112), bad_certificate_status_response(113), unknown_psk_identity(115), certificate_required(116), no_application_protocol(120), (255) } AlertDescription; struct { AlertLevel level; AlertDescription description; } Alert; Rescorla Standards Track [Page 86]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

6.1. Closure Alerts

The client and the server must share knowledge that the connection is
ending in order to avoid a truncation attack. close_notify: This alert notifies the recipient that the sender will not send any more messages on this connection. Any data received after a closure alert has been received MUST be ignored. user_canceled: This alert notifies the recipient that the sender is

canceling the handshake for some reason unrelated to a protocol
failure. If a user cancels an operation after the handshake is complete, just closing the connection by sending a "close_notify" is more appropriate. This alert SHOULD be followed by a "close_notify". This alert generally has AlertLevel=warning.

Either party MAY initiate a close of its write side of the connection
by sending a "close_notify" alert. Any data received after a closure alert has been received MUST be ignored. If a transport-level close is received prior to a "close_notify", the receiver cannot know that all the data that was sent has been received. Each party MUST send a "close_notify" alert before closing its write side of the connection, unless it has already sent some error alert. This does not have any effect on its read side of the connection. Note that this is a change from versions of TLS prior to TLS 1.3 in which implementations were required to react to a "close_notify" by discarding pending writes and sending an immediate "close_notify" alert of their own. That previous requirement could cause truncation in the read side. Both parties need not wait to receive a "close_notify" alert before closing their read side of the connection, though doing so would introduce the possibility of truncation.

If the application protocol using TLS provides that any data may be

carried over the underlying transport after the TLS connection is
closed, the TLS implementation MUST receive a "close_notify" alert before indicating end-of-data to the application layer. No part of

this standard should be taken to dictate the manner in which a usage
profile for TLS manages its data transport, including when connections are opened or closed. Note: It is assumed that closing the write side of a connection reliably delivers pending data before destroying the transport. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 87]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

6.2. Error Alerts
Error handling in TLS is very simple. When an error is detected, the detecting party sends a message to its peer. Upon transmission or receipt of a fatal alert message, both parties MUST immediately close the connection. Whenever an implementation encounters a fatal error condition, it

SHOULD send an appropriate fatal alert and MUST close the connection
without sending or receiving any additional data. In the rest of this specification, when the phrases "terminate the connection" and "abort the handshake" are used without a specific alert it means that

the implementation SHOULD send the alert indicated by the
descriptions below. The phrases "terminate the connection with an X alert" and "abort the handshake with an X alert" mean that the implementation MUST send alert X if it sends any alert. All alerts defined below in this section, as well as all unknown alerts, are universally considered fatal as of TLS 1.3 (see Section 6). The

implementation SHOULD provide a way to facilitate logging the sending
and receiving of alerts. The following error alerts are defined: unexpected_message: An inappropriate message (e.g., the wrong handshake message, premature Application Data, etc.) was received.

This alert should never be observed in communication between
proper implementations. bad_record_mac: This alert is returned if a record is received which cannot be deprotected. Because AEAD algorithms combine decryption and verification, and also to avoid side-channel attacks, this alert is used for all deprotection failures. This alert should never be observed in communication between proper implementations, except when messages were corrupted in the network. record_overflow: A TLSCiphertext record was received that had a length more than 2^14 + 256 bytes, or a record decrypted to a TLSPlaintext record with more than 2^14 bytes (or some other negotiated limit). This alert should never be observed in communication between proper implementations, except when messages were corrupted in the network. handshake_failure: Receipt of a "handshake_failure" alert message

indicates that the sender was unable to negotiate an acceptable
set of security parameters given the options available. bad_certificate: A certificate was corrupt, contained signatures that did not verify correctly, etc. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 88]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
unsupported_certificate: A certificate was of an unsupported type. certificate_revoked: A certificate was revoked by its signer. certificate_expired: A certificate has expired or is not currently valid. certificate_unknown: Some other (unspecified) issue arose in processing the certificate, rendering it unacceptable. illegal_parameter: A field in the handshake was incorrect or inconsistent with other fields. This alert is used for errors

which conform to the formal protocol syntax but are otherwise
incorrect. unknown_ca: A valid certificate chain or partial chain was received,

but the certificate was not accepted because the CA certificate

could not be located or could not be matched with a known trust
anchor. access_denied: A valid certificate or PSK was received, but when access control was applied, the sender decided not to proceed with negotiation. decode_error: A message could not be decoded because some field was

out of the specified range or the length of the message was
incorrect. This alert is used for errors where the message does not conform to the formal protocol syntax. This alert should never be observed in communication between proper implementations, except when messages were corrupted in the network. decrypt_error: A handshake (not record layer) cryptographic operation failed, including being unable to correctly verify a signature or validate a Finished message or a PSK binder. protocol_version: The protocol version the peer has attempted to negotiate is recognized but not supported (see Appendix D). insufficient_security: Returned instead of "handshake_failure" when

a negotiation has failed specifically because the server requires
parameters more secure than those supported by the client. internal_error: An internal error unrelated to the peer or the

correctness of the protocol (such as a memory allocation failure)
makes it impossible to continue. inappropriate_fallback: Sent by a server in response to an invalid connection retry attempt from a client (see [RFC7507]). Rescorla Standards Track [Page 89]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
missing_extension: Sent by endpoints that receive a handshake

message not containing an extension that is mandatory to send for
the offered TLS version or other negotiated parameters. unsupported_extension: Sent by endpoints receiving any handshake

message containing an extension known to be prohibited for
inclusion in the given handshake message, or including any

extensions in a ServerHello or Certificate not first offered in
the corresponding ClientHello or CertificateRequest. unrecognized_name: Sent by servers when no server exists identified by the name provided by the client via the "server_name" extension (see [RFC6066]). bad_certificate_status_response: Sent by clients when an invalid or

unacceptable OCSP response is provided by the server via the
"status_request" extension (see [RFC6066]). unknown_psk_identity: Sent by servers when PSK key establishment is desired but no acceptable PSK identity is provided by the client. Sending this alert is OPTIONAL; servers MAY instead choose to send a "decrypt_error" alert to merely indicate an invalid PSK identity. certificate_required: Sent by servers when a client certificate is desired but none was provided by the client. no_application_protocol: Sent by servers when a client "application_layer_protocol_negotiation" extension advertises only protocols that the server does not support (see [RFC7301]). New Alert values are assigned by IANA as described in Section 11.

7. Cryptographic Computations

The TLS handshake establishes one or more input secrets which are
combined to create the actual working keying material, as detailed below. The key derivation process incorporates both the input secrets and the handshake transcript. Note that because the

handshake transcript includes the random values from the Hello
messages, any given handshake will have different traffic secrets, even if the same input secrets are used, as is the case when the same PSK is used for multiple connections. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 90]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

7.1. Key Schedule

The key derivation process makes use of the HKDF-Extract and
HKDF-Expand functions as defined for HKDF [RFC5869], as well as the functions defined below: HKDF-Expand-Label(Secret, Label, Context, Length) = HKDF-Expand(Secret, HkdfLabel, Length) Where HkdfLabel is specified as: struct { uint16 length = Length; opaque label<7..255> = "tls13 " + Label; opaque context<0..255> = Context; } HkdfLabel; Derive-Secret(Secret, Label, Messages) = HKDF-Expand-Label(Secret, Label, Transcript-Hash(Messages), Hash.length)

The Hash function used by Transcript-Hash and HKDF is the cipher
suite hash algorithm. Hash.length is its output length in bytes. Messages is the concatenation of the indicated handshake messages, including the handshake message type and length fields, but not including record layer headers. Note that in some cases a zero length Context (indicated by "") is passed to HKDF-Expand-Label. The

labels specified in this document are all ASCII strings and do not
include a trailing NUL byte. Note: With common hash functions, any label longer than 12 characters requires an additional iteration of the hash function to compute.

The labels in this specification have all been chosen to fit within
this limit. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 91]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

Keys are derived from two input secrets using the HKDF-Extract and
Derive-Secret functions. The general pattern for adding a new secret

is to use HKDF-Extract with the Salt being the current secret state
and the Input Keying Material (IKM) being the new secret to be added. In this version of TLS 1.3, the two input secrets are:

• PSK (a pre-shared key established externally or derived from the
  resumption_master_secret value from a previous connection)
• (EC)DHE shared secret (Section 7.4)

This produces a full key derivation schedule shown in the diagram
below. In this diagram, the following formatting conventions apply:

• HKDF-Extract is drawn as taking the Salt argument from the top and
  the IKM argument from the left, with its output to the bottom and the name of the output on the right.
• Derive-Secret's Secret argument is indicated by the incoming
  arrow. For instance, the Early Secret is the Secret for generating the client_early_traffic_secret.
• "0" indicates a string of Hash.length bytes set to zero.
  Rescorla Standards Track [Page 92]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
0
|
v PSK -> HKDF-Extract = Early Secret
|
+-----> Derive-Secret(., "ext binder" | "res binder", "")
| = binder_key
|
+-----> Derive-Secret(., "c e traffic", ClientHello)
| = client_early_traffic_secret
|
+-----> Derive-Secret(., "e exp master", ClientHello)
| = early_exporter_master_secret
v Derive-Secret(., "derived", "")
|
v (EC)DHE -> HKDF-Extract = Handshake Secret
|
+-----> Derive-Secret(., "c hs traffic",
| ClientHello...ServerHello)
| = client_handshake_traffic_secret
|
+-----> Derive-Secret(., "s hs traffic",
| ClientHello...ServerHello)
| = server_handshake_traffic_secret
v Derive-Secret(., "derived", "")
|
v 0 -> HKDF-Extract = Master Secret
|
+-----> Derive-Secret(., "c ap traffic",
| ClientHello...server Finished)
| = client_application_traffic_secret_0
|
+-----> Derive-Secret(., "s ap traffic",
| ClientHello...server Finished)
| = server_application_traffic_secret_0
|
+-----> Derive-Secret(., "exp master",
| ClientHello...server Finished)
| = exporter_master_secret
|
+-----> Derive-Secret(., "res master",
ClientHello...client Finished) = resumption_master_secret Rescorla Standards Track [Page 93]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

The general pattern here is that the secrets shown down the left side
of the diagram are just raw entropy without context, whereas the

secrets down the right side include Handshake Context and therefore
can be used to derive working keys without additional context. Note

that the different calls to Derive-Secret may take different Messages
arguments, even with the same secret. In a 0-RTT exchange, Derive-Secret is called with four distinct transcripts; in a 1-RTT-only exchange, it is called with three distinct transcripts. If a given secret is not available, then the 0-value consisting of a string of Hash.length bytes set to zeros is used. Note that this does not mean skipping rounds, so if PSK is not in use, Early Secret will still be HKDF-Extract(0, 0). For the computation of the binder_key, the label is "ext binder" for external PSKs (those provisioned outside of TLS) and "res binder" for resumption PSKs (those provisioned as the resumption master secret of a previous handshake). The different labels prevent the substitution of one type of PSK for the other. There are multiple potential Early Secret values, depending on which PSK the server ultimately selects. The client will need to compute one for each potential PSK; if no PSK is selected, it will then need to compute the Early Secret corresponding to the zero PSK.

Once all the values which are to be derived from a given secret have
been computed, that secret SHOULD be erased.

7.2. Updating Traffic Secrets
Once the handshake is complete, it is possible for either side to

update its sending traffic keys using the KeyUpdate handshake message
defined in Section 4.6.3. The next generation of traffic keys is computed by generating client_/server_application_traffic_secret_N+1 from client_/server_application_traffic_secret_N as described in this

section and then re-deriving the traffic keys as described in
Section 7.3. The next-generation application_traffic_secret is computed as: application_traffic_secret_N+1 = HKDF-Expand-Label(application_traffic_secret_N, "traffic upd", "", Hash.length) Once client_/server_application_traffic_secret_N+1 and its associated traffic keys have been computed, implementations SHOULD delete client_/server_application_traffic_secret_N and its associated traffic keys. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 94]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

7.3. Traffic Key Calculation

The traffic keying material is generated from the following input
values:

• A secret value
• A purpose value indicating the specific value being generated
• The length of the key being generated

The traffic keying material is generated from an input traffic secret
value using: [sender]_write_key = HKDF-Expand-Label(Secret, "key", "", key_length) [sender]_write_iv = HKDF-Expand-Label(Secret, "iv", "", iv_length) [sender] denotes the sending side. The value of Secret for each record type is shown in the table below.
+-------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Record Type | Secret |
+-------------------+---------------------------------------+
| 0-RTT Application | client_early_traffic_secret |
| | |
| Handshake | [sender]_handshake_traffic_secret |
| | |
| Application Data | [sender]_application_traffic_secret_N |
+-------------------+---------------------------------------+

All the traffic keying material is recomputed whenever the underlying
Secret changes (e.g., when changing from the handshake to Application Data keys or upon a key update).
7.4. (EC)DHE Shared Secret Calculation

7.4.1. Finite Field Diffie-Hellman
For finite field groups, a conventional Diffie-Hellman [DH76] computation is performed. The negotiated key (Z) is converted to a

byte string by encoding in big-endian form and left-padded with zeros
up to the size of the prime. This byte string is used as the shared secret in the key schedule as specified above.

Note that this construction differs from previous versions of TLS
which removed leading zeros. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 95]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

7.4.2. Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman
For secp256r1, secp384r1, and secp521r1, ECDH calculations (including

parameter and key generation as well as the shared secret
calculation) are performed according to [IEEE1363] using the

ECKAS-DH1 scheme with the identity map as the key derivation function
(KDF), so that the shared secret is the x-coordinate of the ECDH shared secret elliptic curve point represented as an octet string. Note that this octet string ("Z" in IEEE 1363 terminology) as output

by FE2OSP (the Field Element to Octet String Conversion Primitive)
has constant length for any given field; leading zeros found in this octet string MUST NOT be truncated. (Note that this use of the identity KDF is a technicality. The

complete picture is that ECDH is employed with a non-trivial KDF

because TLS does not directly use this secret for anything other than
for computing other secrets.) For X25519 and X448, the ECDH calculations are as follows:

• The public key to put into the KeyShareEntry.key_exchange

structure is the result of applying the ECDH scalar multiplication

function to the secret key of appropriate length (into scalar

input) and the standard public basepoint (into u-coordinate point
input).

• The ECDH shared secret is the result of applying the ECDH scalar

multiplication function to the secret key (into scalar input) and
the peer's public key (into u-coordinate point input). The output is used raw, with no processing. For these curves, implementations SHOULD use the approach specified in [RFC7748] to calculate the Diffie-Hellman shared secret.

Implementations MUST check whether the computed Diffie-Hellman shared
secret is the all-zero value and abort if so, as described in Section 6 of [RFC7748]. If implementors use an alternative implementation of these elliptic curves, they SHOULD perform the additional checks specified in Section 7 of [RFC7748]. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 96]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

7.5. Exporters
[RFC5705] defines keying material exporters for TLS in terms of the TLS pseudorandom function (PRF). This document replaces the PRF with HKDF, thus requiring a new construction. The exporter interface remains the same. The exporter value is computed as: TLS-Exporter(label, context_value, key_length) = HKDF-Expand-Label(Derive-Secret(Secret, label, ""), "exporter", Hash(context_value), key_length) Where Secret is either the early_exporter_master_secret or the exporter_master_secret. Implementations MUST use the exporter_master_secret unless explicitly specified by the application. The early_exporter_master_secret is defined for use in settings where an exporter is needed for 0-RTT data. A separate interface for the early exporter is RECOMMENDED; this avoids the

exporter user accidentally using an early exporter when a regular one
is desired or vice versa. If no context is provided, the context_value is zero length. Consequently, providing no context computes the same value as providing an empty context. This is a change from previous versions

of TLS where an empty context produced a different output than an
absent context. As of this document's publication, no allocated exporter label is used both with and without a context. Future

specifications MUST NOT define a use of exporters that permit both an
empty context and no context with the same label. New uses of exporters SHOULD provide a context in all exporter computations, though the value could be empty.

Requirements for the format of exporter labels are defined in
Section 4 of [RFC5705]. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 97]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
8. 0-RTT and Anti-Replay
As noted in Section 2.3 and Appendix E.5, TLS does not provide inherent replay protections for 0-RTT data. There are two potential threats to be concerned with:

• Network attackers who mount a replay attack by simply duplicating
  a flight of 0-RTT data.
• Network attackers who take advantage of client retry behavior to

arrange for the server to receive multiple copies of an
application message. This threat already exists to some extent

because clients that value robustness respond to network errors by
attempting to retry requests. However, 0-RTT adds an additional

dimension for any server system which does not maintain globally
consistent server state. Specifically, if a server system has

multiple zones where tickets from zone A will not be accepted in
zone B, then an attacker can duplicate a ClientHello and early data intended for A to both A and B. At A, the data will be accepted in 0-RTT, but at B the server will reject 0-RTT data and instead force a full handshake. If the attacker blocks the ServerHello from A, then the client will complete the handshake with B and probably retry the request, leading to duplication on the server system as a whole.

The first class of attack can be prevented by sharing state to
guarantee that the 0-RTT data is accepted at most once. Servers

SHOULD provide that level of replay safety by implementing one of the
methods described in this section or by equivalent means. It is understood, however, that due to operational concerns not all deployments will maintain state at that level. Therefore, in normal operation, clients will not know which, if any, of these mechanisms

servers actually implement and hence MUST only send early data which
they deem safe to be replayed. In addition to the direct effects of replays, there is a class of

attacks where even operations normally considered idempotent could be
exploited by a large number of replays (timing attacks, resource limit exhaustion and others, as described in Appendix E.5). Those

can be mitigated by ensuring that every 0-RTT payload can be replayed
only a limited number of times. The server MUST ensure that any instance of it (be it a machine, a thread, or any other entity within

the relevant serving infrastructure) would accept 0-RTT for the same
0-RTT handshake at most once; this limits the number of replays to the number of server instances in the deployment. Such a guarantee

can be accomplished by locally recording data from recently received
ClientHellos and rejecting repeats, or by any other method that Rescorla Standards Track [Page 98]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
provides the same or a stronger guarantee. The "at most once per server instance" guarantee is a minimum requirement; servers SHOULD limit 0-RTT replays further when feasible.

The second class of attack cannot be prevented at the TLS layer and
MUST be dealt with by any application. Note that any application

whose clients implement any kind of retry behavior already needs to
implement some sort of anti-replay defense.

8.1. Single-Use Tickets

The simplest form of anti-replay defense is for the server to only
allow each session ticket to be used once. For instance, the server can maintain a database of all outstanding valid tickets, deleting each ticket from the database as it is used. If an unknown ticket is provided, the server would then fall back to a full handshake. If the tickets are not self-contained but rather are database keys, and the corresponding PSKs are deleted upon use, then connections established using PSKs enjoy forward secrecy. This improves security for all 0-RTT data and PSK usage when PSK is used without (EC)DHE.

Because this mechanism requires sharing the session database between
server nodes in environments with multiple distributed servers, it

may be hard to achieve high rates of successful PSK 0-RTT connections
when compared to self-encrypted tickets. Unlike session databases,

session tickets can successfully do PSK-based session establishment
even without consistent storage, though when 0-RTT is allowed they still require consistent storage for anti-replay of 0-RTT data, as detailed in the following section.

8.2. Client Hello Recording

An alternative form of anti-replay is to record a unique value

derived from the ClientHello (generally either the random value or
the PSK binder) and reject duplicates. Recording all ClientHellos causes state to grow without bound, but a server can instead record

ClientHellos within a given time window and use the
"obfuscated_ticket_age" to ensure that tickets aren't reused outside that window. In order to implement this, when a ClientHello is received, the server first verifies the PSK binder as described in Section 4.2.11. It then computes the expected_arrival_time as described in the next section and rejects 0-RTT if it is outside the recording window, falling back to the 1-RTT handshake. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 99]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
If the expected_arrival_time is in the window, then the server checks to see if it has recorded a matching ClientHello. If one is found, it either aborts the handshake with an "illegal_parameter" alert or accepts the PSK but rejects 0-RTT. If no matching ClientHello is found, then it accepts 0-RTT and then stores the ClientHello for as long as the expected_arrival_time is inside the window. Servers MAY also implement data stores with false positives, such as Bloom filters, in which case they MUST respond to apparent replay by rejecting 0-RTT but MUST NOT abort the handshake.

The server MUST derive the storage key only from validated sections
of the ClientHello. If the ClientHello contains multiple PSK identities, then an attacker can create multiple ClientHellos with

different binder values for the less-preferred identity on the

assumption that the server will not verify it (as recommended by
Section 4.2.11). I.e., if the client sends PSKs A and B but the server prefers A, then the attacker can change the binder for B without affecting the binder for A. If the binder for B is part of the storage key, then this ClientHello will not appear as a duplicate, which will cause the ClientHello to be accepted, and may cause side effects such as replay cache pollution, although any 0-RTT data will not be decryptable because it will use different keys. If the validated binder or the ClientHello.random is used as the storage key, then this attack is not possible.

Because this mechanism does not require storing all outstanding
tickets, it may be easier to implement in distributed systems with high rates of resumption and 0-RTT, at the cost of potentially weaker

anti-replay defense because of the difficulty of reliably storing and
retrieving the received ClientHello messages. In many such systems,

it is impractical to have globally consistent storage of all the
received ClientHellos. In this case, the best anti-replay protection

is provided by having a single storage zone be authoritative for a
given ticket and refusing 0-RTT for that ticket in any other zone.

This approach prevents simple replay by the attacker because only one
zone will accept 0-RTT data. A weaker design is to implement separate storage for each zone but allow 0-RTT in any zone. This approach limits the number of replays to once per zone. Application message duplication of course remains possible with either design. When implementations are freshly started, they SHOULD reject 0-RTT as

long as any portion of their recording window overlaps the startup
time. Otherwise, they run the risk of accepting replays which were originally sent during that period. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 100]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
Note: If the client's clock is running much faster than the server's,

then a ClientHello may be received that is outside the window in the
future, in which case it might be accepted for 1-RTT, causing a client retry, and then acceptable later for 0-RTT. This is another variant of the second form of attack described in Section 8.

8.3. Freshness Checks

Because the ClientHello indicates the time at which the client sent
it, it is possible to efficiently determine whether a ClientHello was

likely sent reasonably recently and only accept 0-RTT for such a
ClientHello, otherwise falling back to a 1-RTT handshake. This is

necessary for the ClientHello storage mechanism described in
Section 8.2 because otherwise the server needs to store an unlimited number of ClientHellos, and is a useful optimization for self

contained single-use tickets because it allows efficient rejection of
ClientHellos which cannot be used for 0-RTT. In order to implement this mechanism, a server needs to store the time that the server generated the session ticket, offset by an estimate of the round-trip time between client and server. I.e., adjusted_creation_time = creation_time + estimated_RTT This value can be encoded in the ticket, thus avoiding the need to keep state for each outstanding ticket. The server can determine the client's view of the age of the ticket by subtracting the ticket's "ticket_age_add" value from the "obfuscated_ticket_age" parameter in the client's "pre_shared_key" extension. The server can determine the expected_arrival_time of the ClientHello as: expected_arrival_time = adjusted_creation_time + clients_ticket_age When a new ClientHello is received, the expected_arrival_time is then

compared against the current server wall clock time and if they
differ by more than a certain amount, 0-RTT is rejected, though the 1-RTT handshake can be allowed to complete. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 101]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

There are several potential sources of error that might cause
mismatches between the expected_arrival_time and the measured time. Variations in client and server clock rates are likely to be minimal, though potentially the absolute times may be off by large values.

Network propagation delays are the most likely causes of a mismatch
in legitimate values for elapsed time. Both the NewSessionTicket and ClientHello messages might be retransmitted and therefore delayed, which might be hidden by TCP. For clients on the Internet, this

implies windows on the order of ten seconds to account for errors in
clocks and variations in measurements; other deployment scenarios may have different needs. Clock skew distributions are not symmetric, so

the optimal tradeoff may involve an asymmetric range of permissible
mismatch values.

Note that freshness checking alone is not sufficient to prevent
replays because it does not detect them during the error window,

which -- depending on bandwidth and system capacity -- could include
billions of replays in real-world settings. In addition, this

freshness checking is only done at the time the ClientHello is

received and not when subsequent early Application Data records are
received. After early data is accepted, records may continue to be streamed to the server over a longer time period.

9. Compliance Requirements

9.1. Mandatory-to-Implement Cipher Suites

In the absence of an application profile standard specifying
otherwise: A TLS-compliant application MUST implement the TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 [GCM] cipher suite and SHOULD implement the TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 [GCM] and TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 [RFC8439] cipher suites (see

Appendix B.4).

A TLS-compliant application MUST support digital signatures with
rsa_pkcs1_sha256 (for certificates), rsa_pss_rsae_sha256 (for CertificateVerify and certificates), and ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256. A

TLS-compliant application MUST support key exchange with secp256r1
(NIST P-256) and SHOULD support key exchange with X25519 [RFC7748]. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 102]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

9.2. Mandatory-to-Implement Extensions

In the absence of an application profile standard specifying
otherwise, a TLS-compliant application MUST implement the following TLS extensions:

• Supported Versions ("supported_versions"; Section 4.2.1)
• Cookie ("cookie"; Section 4.2.2)
• Signature Algorithms ("signature_algorithms"; Section 4.2.3)
• Signature Algorithms Certificate ("signature_algorithms_cert";
  Section 4.2.3)
• Negotiated Groups ("supported_groups"; Section 4.2.7)
• Key Share ("key_share"; Section 4.2.8)
• Server Name Indication ("server_name"; Section 3 of [RFC6066])

All implementations MUST send and use these extensions when offering
applicable features:

• "supported_versions" is REQUIRED for all ClientHello, ServerHello,
  and HelloRetryRequest messages.
• "signature_algorithms" is REQUIRED for certificate authentication.
• "supported_groups" is REQUIRED for ClientHello messages using DHE
  or ECDHE key exchange.
• "key_share" is REQUIRED for DHE or ECDHE key exchange.
• "pre_shared_key" is REQUIRED for PSK key agreement.
• "psk_key_exchange_modes" is REQUIRED for PSK key agreement.
  Rescorla Standards Track [Page 103]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

A client is considered to be attempting to negotiate using this
specification if the ClientHello contains a "supported_versions" extension with 0x0304 contained in its body. Such a ClientHello message MUST meet the following requirements:

• If not containing a "pre_shared_key" extension, it MUST contain
  both a "signature_algorithms" extension and a "supported_groups" extension.
• If containing a "supported_groups" extension, it MUST also contain
  a "key_share" extension, and vice versa. An empty KeyShare.client_shares vector is permitted.

Servers receiving a ClientHello which does not conform to these
requirements MUST abort the handshake with a "missing_extension" alert. Additionally, all implementations MUST support the use of the "server_name" extension with applications capable of using it. Servers MAY require clients to send a valid "server_name" extension.

Servers requiring this extension SHOULD respond to a ClientHello
lacking a "server_name" extension by terminating the connection with a "missing_extension" alert.

9.3. Protocol Invariants

This section describes invariants that TLS endpoints and middleboxes
MUST follow. It also applies to earlier versions of TLS. TLS is designed to be securely and compatibly extensible. Newer clients or servers, when communicating with newer peers, should negotiate the most preferred common parameters. The TLS handshake provides downgrade protection: Middleboxes passing traffic between a

newer client and newer server without terminating TLS should be
unable to influence the handshake (see Appendix E.1). At the same time, deployments update at different rates, so a newer client or server MAY continue to support older parameters, which would allow it to interoperate with older endpoints. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 104]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
For this to work, implementations MUST correctly handle extensible fields:

• A client sending a ClientHello MUST support all parameters
  advertised in it. Otherwise, the server may fail to interoperate by selecting one of those parameters.
• A server receiving a ClientHello MUST correctly ignore all
  unrecognized cipher suites, extensions, and other parameters. Otherwise, it may fail to interoperate with newer clients. In TLS 1.3, a client receiving a CertificateRequest or NewSessionTicket MUST also ignore all unrecognized extensions.
• A middlebox which terminates a TLS connection MUST behave as a
  compliant TLS server (to the original client), including having a certificate which the client is willing to accept, and also as a compliant TLS client (to the original server), including verifying the original server's certificate. In particular, it MUST

generate its own ClientHello containing only parameters it
understands, and it MUST generate a fresh ServerHello random value, rather than forwarding the endpoint's value. Note that TLS's protocol requirements and security analysis only apply to the two connections separately. Safely deploying a TLS

terminator requires additional security considerations which are
beyond the scope of this document.

• A middlebox which forwards ClientHello parameters it does not
  understand MUST NOT process any messages beyond that ClientHello. It MUST forward all subsequent traffic unmodified. Otherwise, it may fail to interoperate with newer clients and servers.

Forwarded ClientHellos may contain advertisements for features not
supported by the middlebox, so the response may include future TLS additions the middlebox does not recognize. These additions MAY change any message beyond the ClientHello arbitrarily. In particular, the values sent in the ServerHello might change, the ServerHello format might change, and the TLSCiphertext format might change. The design of TLS 1.3 was constrained by widely deployed non-compliant TLS middleboxes (see Appendix D.4); however, it does not relax the invariants. Those middleboxes continue to be non-compliant. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 105]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

10. Security Considerations
    Security issues are discussed throughout this memo, especially in Appendices C, D, and E.

11. IANA Considerations

This document uses several registries that were originally created in
[RFC4346] and updated in [RFC8447]. IANA has updated these to reference this document. The registries and their allocation policies are below:

• TLS Cipher Suites registry: values with the first byte in the

range 0-254 (decimal) are assigned via Specification Required
[RFC8126]. Values with the first byte 255 (decimal) are reserved for Private Use [RFC8126]. IANA has added the cipher suites listed in Appendix B.4 to the registry. The "Value" and "Description" columns are taken from the table. The "DTLS-OK" and "Recommended" columns are both marked as "Y" for each new cipher suite.

• TLS ContentType registry: Future values are allocated via
  Standards Action [RFC8126].
• TLS Alerts registry: Future values are allocated via Standards
  Action [RFC8126]. IANA has populated this registry with the values from Appendix B.2. The "DTLS-OK" column is marked as "Y" for all such values. Values marked as "_RESERVED" have comments describing their previous usage.
• TLS HandshakeType registry: Future values are allocated via
  Standards Action [RFC8126]. IANA has updated this registry to rename item 4 from "NewSessionTicket" to "new_session_ticket" and populated this registry with the values from Appendix B.3. The "DTLS-OK" column is marked as "Y" for all such values. Values marked "_RESERVED" have comments describing their previous or temporary usage. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 106]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

This document also uses the TLS ExtensionType Values registry
originally created in [RFC4366]. IANA has updated it to reference this document. Changes to the registry follow:

• IANA has updated the registration policy as follows:

Values with the first byte in the range 0-254 (decimal) are
assigned via Specification Required [RFC8126]. Values with the first byte 255 (decimal) are reserved for Private Use [RFC8126].

• IANA has updated this registry to include the "key_share",
  "pre_shared_key", "psk_key_exchange_modes", "early_data", "cookie", "supported_versions", "certificate_authorities", "oid_filters", "post_handshake_auth", and "signature_algorithms_cert" extensions with the values defined in this document and the "Recommended" value of "Y".
• IANA has updated this registry to include a "TLS 1.3" column which
  lists the messages in which the extension may appear. This column has been initially populated from the table in Section 4.2, with any extension not listed there marked as "-" to indicate that it is not used by TLS 1.3.

This document updates an entry in the TLS Certificate Types registry
originally created in [RFC6091] and updated in [RFC8447]. IANA has updated the entry for value 1 to have the name "OpenPGP_RESERVED", "Recommended" value "N", and comment "Used in TLS versions prior to 1.3."

This document updates an entry in the TLS Certificate Status Types
registry originally created in [RFC6961]. IANA has updated the entry for value 2 to have the name "ocsp_multi_RESERVED" and comment "Used in TLS versions prior to 1.3".

This document updates two entries in the TLS Supported Groups
registry (created under a different name by [RFC4492]; now maintained by [RFC8422]) and updated by [RFC7919] and [RFC8447]. The entries

for values 29 and 30 (x25519 and x448) have been updated to also
refer to this document. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 107]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
In addition, this document defines two new registries that are maintained by IANA:

• TLS SignatureScheme registry: Values with the first byte in the

range 0-253 (decimal) are assigned via Specification Required
[RFC8126]. Values with the first byte 254 or 255 (decimal) are reserved for Private Use [RFC8126]. Values with the first byte in

the range 0-6 or with the second byte in the range 0-3 that are
not currently allocated are reserved for backward compatibility. This registry has a "Recommended" column. The registry has been initially populated with the values described in Section 4.2.3. The following values are marked as "Recommended": ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256, ecdsa_secp384r1_sha384, rsa_pss_rsae_sha256, rsa_pss_rsae_sha384, rsa_pss_rsae_sha512, rsa_pss_pss_sha256, rsa_pss_pss_sha384, rsa_pss_pss_sha512, and ed25519. The "Recommended" column is assigned a value of "N" unless explicitly requested, and adding a value with a "Recommended" value of "Y" requires Standards Action [RFC8126]. IESG Approval is REQUIRED for a Y->N transition.

• TLS PskKeyExchangeMode registry: Values in the range 0-253
  (decimal) are assigned via Specification Required [RFC8126].

The values 254 and 255 (decimal) are reserved for Private Use
[RFC8126]. This registry has a "Recommended" column. The registry has been initially populated with psk_ke (0) and psk_dhe_ke (1). Both are marked as "Recommended". The "Recommended" column is assigned a value of "N" unless explicitly requested, and adding a value with a "Recommended" value of "Y" requires Standards Action [RFC8126]. IESG Approval is REQUIRED for a Y->N transition. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 108]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

12. References

12.1. Normative References
[DH76] Diffie, W. and M. Hellman, "New directions in cryptography", IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 644-654, DOI 10.1109/TIT.1976.1055638, November 1976. [ECDSA] American National Standards Institute, "Public Key Cryptography for the Financial Services Industry: The Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)", ANSI ANS X9.62-2005, November 2005. [GCM] Dworkin, M., "Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of Operation: Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) and GMAC", NIST Special Publication 800-38D, DOI 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-38D, November 2007. [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. [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. [RFC5116] McGrew, D., "An Interface and Algorithms for Authenticated Encryption", RFC 5116, DOI 10.17487/RFC5116, January 2008, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5116. [RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key

Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280. [RFC5705] Rescorla, E., "Keying Material Exporters for Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 5705, DOI 10.17487/RFC5705, March 2010, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5705. [RFC5756] Turner, S., Brown, D., Yiu, K., Housley, R., and T. Polk, "Updates for RSAES-OAEP and RSASSA-PSS Algorithm Parameters", RFC 5756, DOI 10.17487/RFC5756, January 2010, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5756. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 109]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
[RFC5869] Krawczyk, H. and P. Eronen, "HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand Key Derivation Function (HKDF)", RFC 5869, DOI 10.17487/RFC5869, May 2010, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5869. [RFC6066] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions: Extension Definitions", RFC 6066, DOI 10.17487/RFC6066, January 2011, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6066. [RFC6655] McGrew, D. and D. Bailey, "AES-CCM Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 6655, DOI 10.17487/RFC6655, July 2012, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6655. [RFC6960] Santesson, S., Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A., Galperin, S., and C. Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP",
RFC 6960, DOI 10.17487/RFC6960, June 2013,
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6960. [RFC6961] Pettersen, Y., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Multiple Certificate Status Request Extension", RFC 6961, DOI 10.17487/RFC6961, June 2013, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6961. [RFC6962] Laurie, B., Langley, A., and E. Kasper, "Certificate Transparency", RFC 6962, DOI 10.17487/RFC6962, June 2013, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6962. [RFC6979] Pornin, T., "Deterministic Usage of the Digital Signature

Algorithm (DSA) and Elliptic Curve Digital Signature
Algorithm (ECDSA)", RFC 6979, DOI 10.17487/RFC6979, August 2013, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6979. [RFC7301] Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301, July 2014, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301. [RFC7507] Moeller, B. and A. Langley, "TLS Fallback Signaling Cipher

Suite Value (SCSV) for Preventing Protocol Downgrade
Attacks", RFC 7507, DOI 10.17487/RFC7507, April 2015, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7507. [RFC7748] Langley, A., Hamburg, M., and S. Turner, "Elliptic Curves for Security", RFC 7748, DOI 10.17487/RFC7748, January 2016, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7748. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 110]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
[RFC7919] Gillmor, D., "Negotiated Finite Field Diffie-Hellman Ephemeral Parameters for Transport Layer Security (TLS)",
RFC 7919, DOI 10.17487/RFC7919, August 2016,
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7919. [RFC8017] Moriarty, K., Ed., Kaliski, B., Jonsson, J., and A. Rusch, "PKCS #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications Version 2.2",
RFC 8017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8017, November 2016,
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8017. [RFC8032] Josefsson, S. and I. Liusvaara, "Edwards-Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)", RFC 8032, DOI 10.17487/RFC8032, January 2017, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8032. [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126. [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. [RFC8439] Nir, Y. and A. Langley, "ChaCha20 and Poly1305 for IETF Protocols", RFC 8439, DOI 10.17487/RFC8439, June 2018, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8439. [SHS] Dang, Q., "Secure Hash Standard (SHS)", National Institute of Standards and Technology report, DOI 10.6028/NIST.FIPS.180-4, August 2015. [X690] ITU-T, "Information technology -- ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical

Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules
(DER)", ISO/IEC 8825-1:2015, November 2015. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 111]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

12.2. Informative References
[AEAD-LIMITS] Luykx, A. and K. Paterson, "Limits on Authenticated Encryption Use in TLS", August 2017, http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/˜kp/TLS-AEbounds.pdf. [BBFGKZ16] Bhargavan, K., Brzuska, C., Fournet, C., Green, M., Kohlweiss, M., and S. Zanella-Beguelin, "Downgrade Resilience in Key-Exchange Protocols", Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (San Jose), DOI 10.1109/SP.2016.37, May 2016. [BBK17] Bhargavan, K., Blanchet, B., and N. Kobeissi, "Verified Models and Reference Implementations for the TLS 1.3 Standard Candidate", Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (San Jose), DOI 10.1109/SP.2017.26, May 2017. [BDFKPPRSZZ16] Bhargavan, K., Delignat-Lavaud, A., Fournet, C., Kohlweiss, M., Pan, J., Protzenko, J., Rastogi, A., Swamy, N., Zanella-Beguelin, S., and J. Zinzindohoue, "Implementing and Proving the TLS 1.3 Record Layer",

Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (San
Jose), May 2017, https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1178. [Ben17a] Benjamin, D., "Presentation before the TLS WG at IETF 100", November 2017, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/ slides-100-tls-sessa-tls13/>. [Ben17b] Benjamin, D., "Additional TLS 1.3 results from Chrome", message to the TLS mailing list, 18 December 2017, <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/ msg25168.html>. [Blei98] Bleichenbacher, D., "Chosen Ciphertext Attacks against Protocols Based on RSA Encryption Standard PKCS #1", Proceedings of CRYPTO '98, 1998. [BMMRT15] Badertscher, C., Matt, C., Maurer, U., Rogaway, P., and B. Tackmann, "Augmented Secure Channels and the Goal of the TLS 1.3 Record Layer", ProvSec 2015, September 2015, https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/394. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 112]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
[BT16] Bellare, M. and B. Tackmann, "The Multi-User Security of Authenticated Encryption: AES-GCM in TLS 1.3", Proceedings of CRYPTO 2016, July 2016, https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/564. [CCG16] Cohn-Gordon, K., Cremers, C., and L. Garratt, "On Post-compromise Security", IEEE Computer Security Foundations Symposium, DOI 10.1109/CSF.2016.19, July 2015. [CHECKOWAY] Checkoway, S., Maskiewicz, J., Garman, C., Fried, J., Cohney, S., Green, M., Heninger, N., Weinmann, R., Rescorla, E., and H. Shacham, "A Systematic Analysis of the Juniper Dual EC Incident", Proceedings of the 2016 ACM

SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security

• CCS '16, DOI 10.1145/2976749.2978395, October 2016.
  [CHHSV17] Cremers, C., Horvat, M., Hoyland, J., Scott, S., and T. van der Merwe, "Awkward Handshake: Possible mismatch of

client/server view on client authentication in
post-handshake mode in Revision 18", message to the TLS mailing list, 10 February 2017, <https://www.ietf.org/ mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg22382.html>. [CHSV16] Cremers, C., Horvat, M., Scott, S., and T. van der Merwe, "Automated Analysis and Verification of TLS 1.3: 0-RTT, Resumption and Delayed Authentication", Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (San Jose), DOI 10.1109/SP.2016.35, May 2016, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7546518/. [CK01] Canetti, R. and H. Krawczyk, "Analysis of Key-Exchange Protocols and Their Use for Building Secure Channels", Proceedings of Eurocrypt 2001, DOI 10.1007/3-540-44987-6_28, April 2001. [CLINIC] Miller, B., Huang, L., Joseph, A., and J. Tygar, "I Know Why You Went to the Clinic: Risks and Realization of HTTPS Traffic Analysis", Privacy Enhancing Technologies, pp. 143-163, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-08506-7_8, 2014. [DFGS15] Dowling, B., Fischlin, M., Guenther, F., and D. Stebila, "A Cryptographic Analysis of the TLS 1.3 Handshake Protocol Candidates", Proceedings of ACM CCS 2015, October 2015, https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/914. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 113]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
[DFGS16] Dowling, B., Fischlin, M., Guenther, F., and D. Stebila, "A Cryptographic Analysis of the TLS 1.3 Full and Pre-shared Key Handshake Protocol", TRON 2016, February 2016, https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/081. [DOW92] Diffie, W., van Oorschot, P., and M. Wiener, "Authentication and authenticated key exchanges", Designs, Codes and Cryptography, DOI 10.1007/BF00124891, June 1992. [DSS] National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, "Digital Signature Standard (DSS)", NIST FIPS PUB 186-4, DOI 10.6028/NIST.FIPS.186-4, July 2013. [FG17] Fischlin, M. and F. Guenther, "Replay Attacks on Zero Round-Trip Time: The Case of the TLS 1.3 Handshake Candidates", Proceedings of EuroS&P 2017, April 2017, https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/082. [FGSW16] Fischlin, M., Guenther, F., Schmidt, B., and B. Warinschi, "Key Confirmation in Key Exchange: A Formal Treatment and Implications for TLS 1.3", Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (San Jose), DOI 10.1109/SP.2016.34, May 2016, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7546517/. [FW15] Weimer, F., "Factoring RSA Keys With TLS Perfect Forward Secrecy", September 2015. [HCJC16] Husak, M., Cermak, M., Jirsik, T., and P. Celeda, "HTTPS

traffic analysis and client identification using passive
SSL/TLS fingerprinting", EURASIP Journal on Information Security, Vol. 2016, DOI 10.1186/s13635-016-0030-7, February 2016. [HGFS15] Hlauschek, C., Gruber, M., Fankhauser, F., and C. Schanes, "Prying Open Pandora's Box: KCI Attacks against TLS", Proceedings of USENIX Workshop on Offensive Technologies, August 2015. [IEEE1363] IEEE, "IEEE Standard Specifications for Public Key Cryptography", IEEE Std. 1363-2000, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2000.92292. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 114]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
[JSS15] Jager, T., Schwenk, J., and J. Somorovsky, "On the Security of TLS 1.3 and QUIC Against Weaknesses in PKCS#1 v1.5 Encryption", Proceedings of ACM CCS 2015, DOI 10.1145/2810103.2813657, October 2015, <https://www.nds.rub.de/media/nds/ veroeffentlichungen/2015/08/21/Tls13QuicAttacks.pdf>. [KEYAGREEMENT] Barker, E., Chen, L., Roginsky, A., Vassilev, A., and R. Davis, "Recommendation for Pair-Wise Key Establishment Schemes Using Discrete Logarithm Cryptography", National Institute of Standards and Technology, DOI 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-56Ar3, April 2018. [Kraw10] Krawczyk, H., "Cryptographic Extraction and Key Derivation: The HKDF Scheme", Proceedings of CRYPTO 2010, August 2010, https://eprint.iacr.org/2010/264. [Kraw16] Krawczyk, H., "A Unilateral-to-Mutual Authentication

Compiler for Key Exchange (with Applications to Client
Authentication in TLS 1.3", Proceedings of ACM CCS 2016, October 2016, https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/711. [KW16] Krawczyk, H. and H. Wee, "The OPTLS Protocol and TLS 1.3", Proceedings of EuroS&P 2016, March 2016, https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/978. [LXZFH16] Li, X., Xu, J., Zhang, Z., Feng, D., and H. Hu, "Multiple Handshakes Security of TLS 1.3 Candidates", Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (San Jose), DOI 10.1109/SP.2016.36, May 2016, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7546519/. [Mac17] MacCarthaigh, C., "Security Review of TLS1.3 0-RTT", March 2017, <https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/ issues/1001>. [PS18] Patton, C. and T. Shrimpton, "Partially specified channels: The TLS 1.3 record layer without elision", 2018, https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/634. [PSK-FINISHED] Scott, S., Cremers, C., Horvat, M., and T. van der Merwe, "Revision 10: possible attack if client authentication is allowed during PSK", message to the TLS mailing list, 31 October 2015, <https://www.ietf.org/ mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg18215.html>. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 115]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
[REKEY] Abdalla, M. and M. Bellare, "Increasing the Lifetime of a Key: A Comparative Analysis of the Security of Re-keying Techniques", ASIACRYPT 2000, DOI 10.1007/3-540-44448-3_42, October 2000. [Res17a] Rescorla, E., "Preliminary data on Firefox TLS 1.3 Middlebox experiment", message to the TLS mailing list, 5 December 2017, <https://www.ietf.org/ mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg25091.html>. [Res17b] Rescorla, E., "More compatibility measurement results", message to the TLS mailing list, 22 December 2017, <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/ msg25179.html>. [RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3552. [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. [RFC4346] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, DOI 10.17487/RFC4346, April 2006, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4346. [RFC4366] Blake-Wilson, S., Nystrom, M., Hopwood, D., Mikkelsen, J., and T. Wright, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions", RFC 4366, DOI 10.17487/RFC4366, April 2006, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4366. [RFC4492] Blake-Wilson, S., Bolyard, N., Gupta, V., Hawk, C., and B. Moeller, "Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 4492, DOI 10.17487/RFC4492, May 2006, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4492. [RFC5077] Salowey, J., Zhou, H., Eronen, P., and H. Tschofenig, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Resumption without Server-Side State", RFC 5077, DOI 10.17487/RFC5077, January 2008, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5077. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 116]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
[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. [RFC5764] McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer

Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure
Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5764, DOI 10.17487/RFC5764, May 2010, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5764. [RFC5929] Altman, J., Williams, N., and L. Zhu, "Channel Bindings for TLS", RFC 5929, DOI 10.17487/RFC5929, July 2010, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5929. [RFC6091] Mavrogiannopoulos, N. and D. Gillmor, "Using OpenPGP Keys for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authentication",
RFC 6091, DOI 10.17487/RFC6091, February 2011,
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6091. [RFC6101] Freier, A., Karlton, P., and P. Kocher, "The Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) Protocol Version 3.0", RFC 6101, DOI 10.17487/RFC6101, August 2011, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6101. [RFC6176] Turner, S. and T. Polk, "Prohibiting Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) Version 2.0", RFC 6176, DOI 10.17487/RFC6176, March 2011, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6176. [RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347, January 2012, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347. [RFC6520] Seggelmann, R., Tuexen, M., and M. Williams, "Transport

Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS) Heartbeat Extension", RFC 6520, DOI 10.17487/RFC6520, February 2012, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6520. [RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 117]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
[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. [RFC7465] Popov, A., "Prohibiting RC4 Cipher Suites", RFC 7465, DOI 10.17487/RFC7465, February 2015, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7465. [RFC7568] Barnes, R., Thomson, M., Pironti, A., and A. Langley, "Deprecating Secure Sockets Layer Version 3.0", RFC 7568, DOI 10.17487/RFC7568, June 2015, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7568. [RFC7627] Bhargavan, K., Ed., Delignat-Lavaud, A., Pironti, A., Langley, A., and M. Ray, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Hash and Extended Master Secret Extension",
RFC 7627, DOI 10.17487/RFC7627, September 2015,
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7627. [RFC7685] Langley, A., "A Transport Layer Security (TLS) ClientHello Padding Extension", RFC 7685, DOI 10.17487/RFC7685, October 2015, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7685. [RFC7924] Santesson, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Cached Information Extension", RFC 7924, DOI 10.17487/RFC7924, July 2016, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7924. [RFC8305] Schinazi, D. and T. Pauly, "Happy Eyeballs Version 2: Better Connectivity Using Concurrency", RFC 8305, DOI 10.17487/RFC8305, December 2017, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8305. [RFC8422] Nir, Y., Josefsson, S., and M. Pegourie-Gonnard, "Elliptic

Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites for Transport Layer
Security (TLS) Versions 1.2 and Earlier", RFC 8422, DOI 10.17487/RFC8422, August 2018, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8422. [RFC8447] Salowey, J. and S. Turner, "IANA Registry Updates for TLS and DTLS", RFC 8447, DOI 10.17487/RFC8447, August 2018, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8447. [RFC8449] Thomson, M., "Record Size Limit Extension for TLS",
RFC 8449, DOI 10.17487/RFC8449, August 2018,
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8449. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 118]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
[RSA] Rivest, R., Shamir, A., and L. Adleman, "A Method for

Obtaining Digital Signatures and Public-Key
Cryptosystems", Communications of the ACM, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 120-126, DOI 10.1145/359340.359342, February 1978. [SIGMA] Krawczyk, H., "SIGMA: The 'SIGn-and-MAc' Approach to

Authenticated Diffie-Hellman and its Use in the IKE
Protocols", Proceedings of CRYPTO 2003, DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-45146-4_24, August 2003. [SLOTH] Bhargavan, K. and G. Leurent, "Transcript Collision Attacks: Breaking Authentication in TLS, IKE, and SSH",

Network and Distributed System Security
Symposium (NDSS 2016), DOI 10.14722/ndss.2016.23418, February 2016. [SSL2] Hickman, K., "The SSL Protocol", February 1995. [TIMING] Boneh, D. and D. Brumley, "Remote Timing Attacks Are Practical", USENIX Security Symposium, August 2003. [TLS13-TRACES] Thomson, M., "Example Handshake Traces for TLS 1.3", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-tls-tls13-vectors-06, July 2018. [X501] ITU-T, "Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - The Directory: Models", ITU-T X.501, October 2016, https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.501/en. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 119]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

Appendix A. State Machine

This appendix provides a summary of the legal state transitions for
the client and server handshakes. State names (in all capitals, e.g., START) have no formal meaning but are provided for ease of comprehension. Actions which are taken only in certain circumstances are indicated in []. The notation "K_{send,recv} = foo" means "set the send/recv key to the given key". A.1. Client START <----+ Send ClientHello | | Recv HelloRetryRequest [K_send = early data] | | v | / WAIT_SH ----+
| | Recv ServerHello
| | K_recv = handshake
Can | V send | WAIT_EE early | | Recv EncryptedExtensions
data | +--------+--------+
| Using | | Using certificate
| PSK | v
| | WAIT_CERT_CR
| | Recv | | Recv CertificateRequest
| | Certificate | v
| | | WAIT_CERT
| | | | Recv Certificate
| | v v
| | WAIT_CV
| | | Recv CertificateVerify
| +> WAIT_FINISHED <+
| | Recv Finished
\ | [Send EndOfEarlyData]
| K_send = handshake
| [Send Certificate [+ CertificateVerify]]
Can send | Send Finished app data --> | K_send = K_recv = application

after here v

CONNECTED
Note that with the transitions as shown above, clients may send

alerts that derive from post-ServerHello messages in the clear or
with the early data keys. If clients need to send such alerts, they SHOULD first rekey to the handshake keys if possible. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 120]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
A.2. Server START <-----+ Recv ClientHello | | Send HelloRetryRequest v | RECVD_CH ----+
| Select parameters
v

NEGOTIATED
| Send ServerHello
| K_send = handshake
| Send EncryptedExtensions
| [Send CertificateRequest]
Can send | [Send Certificate + CertificateVerify] app data | Send Finished after --> | K_send = application
here +--------+--------+
No 0-RTT | | 0-RTT
| |
K_recv = handshake | | K_recv = early data
[Skip decrypt errors] | +------> WAIT_EOED -+
| | Recv | | Recv EndOfEarlyData
| | early data | | K_recv = handshake
| +------------+ |
| |
+> WAIT_FLIGHT2 <--------+
|
+--------+--------+
No auth | | Client auth
| |
| v
| WAIT_CERT
| Recv | | Recv Certificate
| empty | v
| Certificate | WAIT_CV
| | | Recv
| v | CertificateVerify
+-> WAIT_FINISHED <---+
| Recv Finished
| K_recv = application
v

CONNECTED
Rescorla Standards Track [Page 121]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

Appendix B. Protocol Data Structures and Constant Values

This appendix provides the normative protocol types and the
definitions for constants. Values listed as "_RESERVED" were used in previous versions of TLS and are listed here for completeness. TLS 1.3 implementations MUST NOT send them but might receive them from older TLS implementations. B.1. Record Layer enum { invalid(0), change_cipher_spec(20), alert(21), handshake(22), application_data(23), heartbeat(24), /* RFC 6520 / (255) } ContentType; struct { ContentType type; ProtocolVersion legacy_record_version; uint16 length; opaque fragment[TLSPlaintext.length]; } TLSPlaintext; struct { opaque content[TLSPlaintext.length]; ContentType type; uint8 zeros[length_of_padding]; } TLSInnerPlaintext; struct { ContentType opaque_type = application_data; / 23 / ProtocolVersion legacy_record_version = 0x0303; / TLS v1.2 */ uint16 length; opaque encrypted_record[TLSCiphertext.length]; } TLSCiphertext; Rescorla Standards Track [Page 122]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
B.2. Alert Messages enum { warning(1), fatal(2), (255) } AlertLevel; enum { close_notify(0), unexpected_message(10), bad_record_mac(20), decryption_failed_RESERVED(21), record_overflow(22), decompression_failure_RESERVED(30), handshake_failure(40), no_certificate_RESERVED(41), bad_certificate(42), unsupported_certificate(43), certificate_revoked(44), certificate_expired(45), certificate_unknown(46), illegal_parameter(47), unknown_ca(48), access_denied(49), decode_error(50), decrypt_error(51), export_restriction_RESERVED(60), protocol_version(70), insufficient_security(71), internal_error(80), inappropriate_fallback(86), user_canceled(90), no_renegotiation_RESERVED(100), missing_extension(109), unsupported_extension(110), certificate_unobtainable_RESERVED(111), unrecognized_name(112), bad_certificate_status_response(113), bad_certificate_hash_value_RESERVED(114), unknown_psk_identity(115), certificate_required(116), no_application_protocol(120), (255) } AlertDescription; struct { AlertLevel level; AlertDescription description; } Alert; Rescorla Standards Track [Page 123]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
B.3. Handshake Protocol enum { hello_request_RESERVED(0), client_hello(1), server_hello(2), hello_verify_request_RESERVED(3), new_session_ticket(4), end_of_early_data(5), hello_retry_request_RESERVED(6), encrypted_extensions(8), certificate(11), server_key_exchange_RESERVED(12), certificate_request(13), server_hello_done_RESERVED(14), certificate_verify(15), client_key_exchange_RESERVED(16), finished(20), certificate_url_RESERVED(21), certificate_status_RESERVED(22), supplemental_data_RESERVED(23), key_update(24), message_hash(254), (255) } HandshakeType; struct { HandshakeType msg_type; /* handshake type / uint24 length; / bytes in message */ select (Handshake.msg_type) { case client_hello: ClientHello; case server_hello: ServerHello; case end_of_early_data: EndOfEarlyData; case encrypted_extensions: EncryptedExtensions; case certificate_request: CertificateRequest; case certificate: Certificate; case certificate_verify: CertificateVerify; case finished: Finished; case new_session_ticket: NewSessionTicket; case key_update: KeyUpdate; }; } Handshake; Rescorla Standards Track [Page 124]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
B.3.1. Key Exchange Messages uint16 ProtocolVersion; opaque Random[32]; uint8 CipherSuite[2]; /* Cryptographic suite selector / struct { ProtocolVersion legacy_version = 0x0303; / TLS v1.2 / Random random; opaque legacy_session_id<0..32>; CipherSuite cipher_suites<2..2^16-2>; opaque legacy_compression_methods<1..2^8-1>; Extension extensions<8..2^16-1>; } ClientHello; struct { ProtocolVersion legacy_version = 0x0303; / TLS v1.2 */ Random random; opaque legacy_session_id_echo<0..32>; CipherSuite cipher_suite; uint8 legacy_compression_method = 0; Extension extensions<6..2^16-1>; } ServerHello; Rescorla Standards Track [Page 125]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
struct { ExtensionType extension_type; opaque extension_data<0..2^16-1>; } Extension; enum { server_name(0), /* RFC 6066 / max_fragment_length(1), / RFC 6066 / status_request(5), / RFC 6066 / supported_groups(10), / RFC 8422, 7919 / signature_algorithms(13), / RFC 8446 / use_srtp(14), / RFC 5764 / heartbeat(15), / RFC 6520 / application_layer_protocol_negotiation(16), / RFC 7301 / signed_certificate_timestamp(18), / RFC 6962 / client_certificate_type(19), / RFC 7250 / server_certificate_type(20), / RFC 7250 / padding(21), / RFC 7685 / RESERVED(40), / Used but never assigned / pre_shared_key(41), / RFC 8446 / early_data(42), / RFC 8446 / supported_versions(43), / RFC 8446 / cookie(44), / RFC 8446 / psk_key_exchange_modes(45), / RFC 8446 / RESERVED(46), / Used but never assigned / certificate_authorities(47), / RFC 8446 / oid_filters(48), / RFC 8446 / post_handshake_auth(49), / RFC 8446 / signature_algorithms_cert(50), / RFC 8446 / key_share(51), / RFC 8446 */ (65535) } ExtensionType; struct { NamedGroup group; opaque key_exchange<1..2^16-1>; } KeyShareEntry; struct { KeyShareEntry client_shares<0..2^16-1>; } KeyShareClientHello; struct { NamedGroup selected_group; } KeyShareHelloRetryRequest; Rescorla Standards Track [Page 126]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
struct { KeyShareEntry server_share; } KeyShareServerHello; struct { uint8 legacy_form = 4; opaque X[coordinate_length]; opaque Y[coordinate_length]; } UncompressedPointRepresentation; enum { psk_ke(0), psk_dhe_ke(1), (255) } PskKeyExchangeMode; struct { PskKeyExchangeMode ke_modes<1..255>; } PskKeyExchangeModes; struct {} Empty; struct { select (Handshake.msg_type) { case new_session_ticket: uint32 max_early_data_size; case client_hello: Empty; case encrypted_extensions: Empty; }; } EarlyDataIndication; 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; Rescorla Standards Track [Page 127]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
B.3.1.1. Version Extension struct { select (Handshake.msg_type) { case client_hello: ProtocolVersion versions<2..254>; case server_hello: /* and HelloRetryRequest */ ProtocolVersion selected_version; }; } SupportedVersions; B.3.1.2. Cookie Extension struct { opaque cookie<1..2^16-1>; } Cookie; Rescorla Standards Track [Page 128]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
B.3.1.3. Signature Algorithm Extension enum { /* RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 algorithms / rsa_pkcs1_sha256(0x0401), rsa_pkcs1_sha384(0x0501), rsa_pkcs1_sha512(0x0601), / ECDSA algorithms / ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256(0x0403), ecdsa_secp384r1_sha384(0x0503), ecdsa_secp521r1_sha512(0x0603), / RSASSA-PSS algorithms with public key OID rsaEncryption / rsa_pss_rsae_sha256(0x0804), rsa_pss_rsae_sha384(0x0805), rsa_pss_rsae_sha512(0x0806), / EdDSA algorithms / ed25519(0x0807), ed448(0x0808), / RSASSA-PSS algorithms with public key OID RSASSA-PSS / rsa_pss_pss_sha256(0x0809), rsa_pss_pss_sha384(0x080a), rsa_pss_pss_sha512(0x080b), / Legacy algorithms / rsa_pkcs1_sha1(0x0201), ecdsa_sha1(0x0203), / Reserved Code Points */ obsolete_RESERVED(0x0000..0x0200), dsa_sha1_RESERVED(0x0202), obsolete_RESERVED(0x0204..0x0400), dsa_sha256_RESERVED(0x0402), obsolete_RESERVED(0x0404..0x0500), dsa_sha384_RESERVED(0x0502), obsolete_RESERVED(0x0504..0x0600), dsa_sha512_RESERVED(0x0602), obsolete_RESERVED(0x0604..0x06FF), private_use(0xFE00..0xFFFF), (0xFFFF) } SignatureScheme; struct { SignatureScheme supported_signature_algorithms<2..2^16-2>; } SignatureSchemeList; Rescorla Standards Track [Page 129]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
B.3.1.4. Supported Groups Extension enum { unallocated_RESERVED(0x0000), /* Elliptic Curve Groups (ECDHE) / obsolete_RESERVED(0x0001..0x0016), secp256r1(0x0017), secp384r1(0x0018), secp521r1(0x0019), obsolete_RESERVED(0x001A..0x001C), x25519(0x001D), x448(0x001E), / Finite Field Groups (DHE) / ffdhe2048(0x0100), ffdhe3072(0x0101), ffdhe4096(0x0102), ffdhe6144(0x0103), ffdhe8192(0x0104), / Reserved Code Points */ ffdhe_private_use(0x01FC..0x01FF), ecdhe_private_use(0xFE00..0xFEFF), obsolete_RESERVED(0xFF01..0xFF02), (0xFFFF) } NamedGroup; struct { NamedGroup named_group_list<2..2^16-1>; } NamedGroupList; Values within "obsolete_RESERVED" ranges are used in previous versions of TLS and MUST NOT be offered or negotiated by TLS 1.3 implementations. The obsolete curves have various known/theoretical weaknesses or have had very little usage, in some cases only due to unintentional server configuration issues. They are no longer

considered appropriate for general use and should be assumed to be
potentially unsafe. The set of curves specified here is sufficient

for interoperability with all currently deployed and properly
configured TLS implementations. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 130]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
B.3.2. Server Parameters Messages opaque DistinguishedName<1..2^16-1>; struct { DistinguishedName authorities<3..2^16-1>; } CertificateAuthoritiesExtension; struct { opaque certificate_extension_oid<1..2^8-1>; opaque certificate_extension_values<0..2^16-1>; } OIDFilter; struct { OIDFilter filters<0..2^16-1>; } OIDFilterExtension; struct {} PostHandshakeAuth; struct { Extension extensions<0..2^16-1>; } EncryptedExtensions; struct { opaque certificate_request_context<0..2^8-1>; Extension extensions<2..2^16-1>; } CertificateRequest; Rescorla Standards Track [Page 131]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
B.3.3. Authentication Messages enum { X509(0), OpenPGP_RESERVED(1), RawPublicKey(2), (255) } CertificateType; struct { select (certificate_type) { case RawPublicKey: /* From RFC 7250 ASN.1_subjectPublicKeyInfo */ opaque ASN1_subjectPublicKeyInfo<1..2^24-1>; case X509: opaque cert_data<1..2^24-1>; }; Extension extensions<0..2^16-1>; } CertificateEntry; struct { opaque certificate_request_context<0..2^8-1>; CertificateEntry certificate_list<0..2^24-1>; } Certificate; struct { SignatureScheme algorithm; opaque signature<0..2^16-1>; } CertificateVerify; struct { opaque verify_data[Hash.length]; } Finished; B.3.4. Ticket Establishment struct { uint32 ticket_lifetime; uint32 ticket_age_add; opaque ticket_nonce<0..255>; opaque ticket<1..2^16-1>; Extension extensions<0..2^16-2>; } NewSessionTicket; Rescorla Standards Track [Page 132]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
B.3.5. Updating Keys struct {} EndOfEarlyData; enum { update_not_requested(0), update_requested(1), (255) } KeyUpdateRequest; struct { KeyUpdateRequest request_update; } KeyUpdate; B.4. Cipher Suites

A symmetric cipher suite defines the pair of the AEAD algorithm and
hash algorithm to be used with HKDF. Cipher suite names follow the naming convention: CipherSuite TLS_AEAD_HASH = VALUE;
+-----------+------------------------------------------------+
| Component | Contents |
+-----------+------------------------------------------------+
| TLS | The string "TLS" |
| | |
| AEAD | The AEAD algorithm used for record protection |
| | |
| HASH | The hash algorithm used with HKDF |
| | |
| VALUE | The two-byte ID assigned for this cipher suite |
+-----------+------------------------------------------------+

This specification defines the following cipher suites for use with
TLS 1.3.
+------------------------------+-------------+
| Description | Value |
+------------------------------+-------------+
| TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 | {0x13,0x01} |
| | |
| TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 | {0x13,0x02} |
| | |
| TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 | {0x13,0x03} |
| | |
| TLS_AES_128_CCM_SHA256 | {0x13,0x04} |
| | |
| TLS_AES_128_CCM_8_SHA256 | {0x13,0x05} |
+------------------------------+-------------+
Rescorla Standards Track [Page 133]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
The corresponding AEAD algorithms AEAD_AES_128_GCM, AEAD_AES_256_GCM, and AEAD_AES_128_CCM are defined in [RFC5116]. AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305 is defined in [RFC8439]. AEAD_AES_128_CCM_8 is defined in [RFC6655]. The corresponding hash algorithms are defined in [SHS]. Although TLS 1.3 uses the same cipher suite space as previous versions of TLS, TLS 1.3 cipher suites are defined differently, only specifying the symmetric ciphers, and cannot be used for TLS 1.2. Similarly, cipher suites for TLS 1.2 and lower cannot be used with TLS 1.3.

New cipher suite values are assigned by IANA as described in
Section 11.

Appendix C. Implementation Notes
The TLS protocol cannot prevent many common security mistakes. This

appendix provides several recommendations to assist implementors.
[TLS13-TRACES] provides test vectors for TLS 1.3 handshakes. C.1. Random Number Generation and Seeding

TLS requires a cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator
(CSPRNG). In most cases, the operating system provides an appropriate facility such as /dev/urandom, which should be used absent other (e.g., performance) concerns. It is RECOMMENDED to use

an existing CSPRNG implementation in preference to crafting a new
one. Many adequate cryptographic libraries are already available under favorable license terms. Should those prove unsatisfactory, [RFC4086] provides guidance on the generation of random values.

TLS uses random values (1) in public protocol fields such as the

public Random values in the ClientHello and ServerHello and (2) to
generate keying material. With a properly functioning CSPRNG, this does not present a security problem, as it is not feasible to determine the CSPRNG state from its output. However, with a broken CSPRNG, it may be possible for an attacker to use the public output

to determine the CSPRNG internal state and thereby predict the keying
material, as documented in [CHECKOWAY]. Implementations can provide

extra security against this form of attack by using separate CSPRNGs
to generate public and private values. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 134]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
C.2. Certificates and Authentication

Implementations are responsible for verifying the integrity of

certificates and should generally support certificate revocation
messages. Absent a specific indication from an application profile,

certificates should always be verified to ensure proper signing by a
trusted certificate authority (CA). The selection and addition of trust anchors should be done very carefully. Users should be able to view information about the certificate and trust anchor. Applications SHOULD also enforce minimum and maximum key sizes. For example, certification paths containing keys or signatures weaker

than 2048-bit RSA or 224-bit ECDSA are not appropriate for secure
applications. C.3. Implementation Pitfalls

Implementation experience has shown that certain parts of earlier TLS

specifications are not easy to understand and have been a source of
interoperability and security problems. Many of these areas have been clarified in this document, but this appendix contains a short

list of the most important things that require special attention from
implementors. TLS protocol issues:

• Do you correctly handle handshake messages that are fragmented to
  multiple TLS records (see Section 5.1)? Do you correctly handle

corner cases like a ClientHello that is split into several small
fragments? Do you fragment handshake messages that exceed the maximum fragment size? In particular, the Certificate and

CertificateRequest handshake messages can be large enough to
require fragmentation.

• Do you ignore the TLS record layer version number in all
  unencrypted TLS records (see Appendix D)?
• Have you ensured that all support for SSL, RC4, EXPORT ciphers,
  and MD5 (via the "signature_algorithms" extension) is completely removed from all possible configurations that support TLS 1.3 or later, and that attempts to use these obsolete capabilities fail correctly (see Appendix D)?
• Do you handle TLS extensions in ClientHellos correctly, including
  unknown extensions? Rescorla Standards Track [Page 135]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

• When the server has requested a client certificate but no suitable
  certificate is available, do you correctly send an empty Certificate message, instead of omitting the whole message (see Section 4.4.2)?
• When processing the plaintext fragment produced by AEAD-Decrypt
  and scanning from the end for the ContentType, do you avoid

scanning past the start of the cleartext in the event that the
peer has sent a malformed plaintext of all zeros?

• Do you properly ignore unrecognized cipher suites (Section 4.1.2),
  hello extensions (Section 4.2), named groups (Section 4.2.7), key shares (Section 4.2.8), supported versions (Section 4.2.1), and signature algorithms (Section 4.2.3) in the ClientHello?
• As a server, do you send a HelloRetryRequest to clients which

support a compatible (EC)DHE group but do not predict it in the
"key_share" extension? As a client, do you correctly handle a HelloRetryRequest from the server? Cryptographic details:

• What countermeasures do you use to prevent timing attacks
  [TIMING]?
• When using Diffie-Hellman key exchange, do you correctly preserve
  leading zero bytes in the negotiated key (see Section 7.4.1)?
• Does your TLS client check that the Diffie-Hellman parameters sent
  by the server are acceptable (see Section 4.2.8.1)?
• Do you use a strong and, most importantly, properly seeded random
  number generator (see Appendix C.1) when generating Diffie-Hellman private values, the ECDSA "k" parameter, and other security critical values? It is RECOMMENDED that implementations implement "deterministic ECDSA" as specified in [RFC6979].
• Do you zero-pad Diffie-Hellman public key values and shared
  secrets to the group size (see Section 4.2.8.1 and Section 7.4.1)?
• Do you verify signatures after making them, to protect against
  RSA-CRT key leaks [FW15]? Rescorla Standards Track [Page 136]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
C.4. Client Tracking Prevention Clients SHOULD NOT reuse a ticket for multiple connections. Reuse of a ticket allows passive observers to correlate different connections.

Servers that issue tickets SHOULD offer at least as many tickets as
the number of connections that a client might use; for example, a web browser using HTTP/1.1 [RFC7230] might open six connections to a server. Servers SHOULD issue new tickets with every connection.

This ensures that clients are always able to use a new ticket when
creating a new connection. C.5. Unauthenticated Operation

Previous versions of TLS offered explicitly unauthenticated cipher
suites based on anonymous Diffie-Hellman. These modes have been deprecated in TLS 1.3. However, it is still possible to negotiate

parameters that do not provide verifiable server authentication by
several methods, including:

• Raw public keys [RFC7250].
• Using a public key contained in a certificate but without
  validation of the certificate chain or any of its contents.

Either technique used alone is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle
attacks and therefore unsafe for general use. However, it is also

possible to bind such connections to an external authentication
mechanism via out-of-band validation of the server's public key, trust on first use, or a mechanism such as channel bindings (though the channel bindings described in [RFC5929] are not defined for TLS 1.3). If no such mechanism is used, then the connection has no protection against active man-in-the-middle attack; applications

MUST NOT use TLS in such a way absent explicit configuration or a
specific application profile. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 137]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

Appendix D. Backward Compatibility

The TLS protocol provides a built-in mechanism for version

negotiation between endpoints potentially supporting different
versions of TLS. TLS 1.x and SSL 3.0 use compatible ClientHello messages. Servers can

also handle clients trying to use future versions of TLS as long as

the ClientHello format remains compatible and there is at least one
protocol version supported by both the client and the server.

Prior versions of TLS used the record layer version number
(TLSPlaintext.legacy_record_version and TLSCiphertext.legacy_record_version) for various purposes. As of TLS 1.3, this field is deprecated. The value of TLSPlaintext.legacy_record_version MUST be ignored by all implementations. The value of TLSCiphertext.legacy_record_version is

included in the additional data for deprotection but MAY otherwise be
ignored or MAY be validated to match the fixed constant value.

Version negotiation is performed using only the handshake versions
(ClientHello.legacy_version and ServerHello.legacy_version, as well as the ClientHello, HelloRetryRequest, and ServerHello "supported_versions" extensions). In order to maximize interoperability with older endpoints, implementations that negotiate the use of TLS 1.0-1.2 SHOULD set the record layer version number to

the negotiated version for the ServerHello and all records
thereafter.

For maximum compatibility with previously non-standard behavior and
misconfigured deployments, all implementations SHOULD support

validation of certification paths based on the expectations in this
document, even when handling prior TLS versions' handshakes (see Section 4.4.2.2). TLS 1.2 and prior supported an "Extended Master Secret" [RFC7627]

extension which digested large parts of the handshake transcript into
the master secret. Because TLS 1.3 always hashes in the transcript up to the server Finished, implementations which support both TLS 1.3

and earlier versions SHOULD indicate the use of the Extended Master
Secret extension in their APIs whenever TLS 1.3 is used. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 138]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
D.1. Negotiating with an Older Server A TLS 1.3 client who wishes to negotiate with servers that do not support TLS 1.3 will send a normal TLS 1.3 ClientHello containing 0x0303 (TLS 1.2) in ClientHello.legacy_version but with the correct version(s) in the "supported_versions" extension. If the server does not support TLS 1.3, it will respond with a ServerHello containing an older version number. If the client agrees to use this version, the negotiation will proceed as appropriate for the negotiated protocol.

A client using a ticket for resumption SHOULD initiate the connection
using the version that was previously negotiated.

Note that 0-RTT data is not compatible with older servers and
SHOULD NOT be sent absent knowledge that the server supports TLS 1.3. See Appendix D.3.

If the version chosen by the server is not supported by the client
(or is not acceptable), the client MUST abort the handshake with a "protocol_version" alert.

Some legacy server implementations are known to not implement the TLS

specification properly and might abort connections upon encountering
TLS extensions or versions which they are not aware of.

Interoperability with buggy servers is a complex topic beyond the
scope of this document. Multiple connection attempts may be required in order to negotiate a backward-compatible connection; however, this practice is vulnerable to downgrade attacks and is NOT RECOMMENDED. D.2. Negotiating with an Older Client

A TLS server can also receive a ClientHello indicating a version
number smaller than its highest supported version. If the "supported_versions" extension is present, the server MUST negotiate using that extension as described in Section 4.2.1. If the "supported_versions" extension is not present, the server MUST negotiate the minimum of ClientHello.legacy_version and TLS 1.2. For example, if the server supports TLS 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2, and legacy_version is TLS 1.0, the server will proceed with a TLS 1.0 ServerHello. If the "supported_versions" extension is absent and the

server only supports versions greater than
ClientHello.legacy_version, the server MUST abort the handshake with a "protocol_version" alert.

Note that earlier versions of TLS did not clearly specify the record

layer version number value in all cases
(TLSPlaintext.legacy_record_version). Servers will receive various TLS 1.x versions in this field, but its value MUST always be ignored. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 139]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
D.3. 0-RTT Backward Compatibility 0-RTT data is not compatible with older servers. An older server will respond to the ClientHello with an older ServerHello, but it

will not correctly skip the 0-RTT data and will fail to complete the
handshake. This can cause issues when a client attempts to use 0-RTT, particularly against multi-server deployments. For example, a deployment could deploy TLS 1.3 gradually with some servers implementing TLS 1.3 and some implementing TLS 1.2, or a TLS 1.3 deployment could be downgraded to TLS 1.2.

A client that attempts to send 0-RTT data MUST fail a connection if
it receives a ServerHello with TLS 1.2 or older. It can then retry the connection with 0-RTT disabled. To avoid a downgrade attack, the client SHOULD NOT disable TLS 1.3, only 0-RTT. To avoid this error condition, multi-server deployments SHOULD ensure a uniform and stable deployment of TLS 1.3 without 0-RTT prior to enabling 0-RTT. D.4. Middlebox Compatibility Mode Field measurements [Ben17a] [Ben17b] [Res17a] [Res17b] have found

that a significant number of middleboxes misbehave when a TLS
client/server pair negotiates TLS 1.3. Implementations can increase

the chance of making connections through those middleboxes by making
the TLS 1.3 handshake look more like a TLS 1.2 handshake:

• The client always provides a non-empty session ID in the
  ClientHello, as described in the legacy_session_id section of Section 4.1.2.
• If not offering early data, the client sends a dummy
  change_cipher_spec record (see the third paragraph of Section 5) immediately before its second flight. This may either be before its second ClientHello or before its encrypted handshake flight. If offering early data, the record is placed immediately after the first ClientHello.
• The server sends a dummy change_cipher_spec record immediately
  after its first handshake message. This may either be after a ServerHello or a HelloRetryRequest. When put together, these changes make the TLS 1.3 handshake resemble TLS 1.2 session resumption, which improves the chance of successfully connecting through middleboxes. This "compatibility mode" is partially negotiated: the client can opt to provide a session ID or not, and the server has to echo it. Either side can send Rescorla Standards Track [Page 140]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
change_cipher_spec at any time during the handshake, as they must be ignored by the peer, but if the client sends a non-empty session ID, the server MUST send the change_cipher_spec as described in this

appendix.
D.5. Security Restrictions Related to Backward Compatibility

Implementations negotiating the use of older versions of TLS SHOULD
prefer forward secret and AEAD cipher suites, when available.

The security of RC4 cipher suites is considered insufficient for the
reasons cited in [RFC7465]. Implementations MUST NOT offer or negotiate RC4 cipher suites for any version of TLS for any reason. Old versions of TLS permitted the use of very low strength ciphers.

Ciphers with a strength less than 112 bits MUST NOT be offered or
negotiated for any version of TLS for any reason. The security of SSL 3.0 [RFC6101] is considered insufficient for the reasons enumerated in [RFC7568], and it MUST NOT be negotiated for any reason. The security of SSL 2.0 [SSL2] is considered insufficient for the reasons enumerated in [RFC6176], and it MUST NOT be negotiated for any reason. Implementations MUST NOT send an SSL version 2.0 compatible CLIENT-HELLO. Implementations MUST NOT negotiate TLS 1.3 or later using an SSL version 2.0 compatible CLIENT-HELLO. Implementations are NOT RECOMMENDED to accept an SSL version 2.0 compatible CLIENT-HELLO in order to negotiate older versions of TLS. Implementations MUST NOT send a ClientHello.legacy_version or ServerHello.legacy_version set to 0x0300 or less. Any endpoint receiving a Hello message with ClientHello.legacy_version or ServerHello.legacy_version set to 0x0300 MUST abort the handshake with a "protocol_version" alert.

Implementations MUST NOT send any records with a version less than
0x0300. Implementations SHOULD NOT accept any records with a version

less than 0x0300 (but may inadvertently do so if the record version
number is ignored completely). Implementations MUST NOT use the Truncated HMAC extension, defined in Section 7 of [RFC6066], as it is not applicable to AEAD algorithms and has been shown to be insecure in some scenarios. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 141]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

Appendix E. Overview of Security Properties

A complete security analysis of TLS is outside the scope of this
document. In this appendix, we provide an informal description of

the desired properties as well as references to more detailed work in
the research literature which provides more formal definitions.

We cover properties of the handshake separately from those of the
record layer. E.1. Handshake

The TLS handshake is an Authenticated Key Exchange (AKE) protocol

which is intended to provide both one-way authenticated (server-only)
and mutually authenticated (client and server) functionality. At the completion of the handshake, each side outputs its view of the following values:

• A set of "session keys" (the various secrets derived from the
  master secret) from which can be derived a set of working keys.
• A set of cryptographic parameters (algorithms, etc.).
• The identities of the communicating parties.
  We assume the attacker to be an active network attacker, which means

it has complete control over the network used to communicate between
the parties [RFC3552]. Even under these conditions, the handshake should provide the properties listed below. Note that these properties are not necessarily independent, but reflect the protocol consumers' needs. Establishing the same session keys: The handshake needs to output the same set of session keys on both sides of the handshake,

provided that it completes successfully on each endpoint (see
[CK01], Definition 1, part 1). Secrecy of the session keys: The shared session keys should be known

only to the communicating parties and not to the attacker (see
[CK01], Definition 1, part 2). Note that in a unilaterally authenticated connection, the attacker can establish its own session keys with the server, but those session keys are distinct from those established by the client. Peer authentication: The client's view of the peer identity should reflect the server's identity. If the client is authenticated, the server's view of the peer identity should match the client's identity. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 142]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
Uniqueness of the session keys: Any two distinct handshakes should produce distinct, unrelated session keys. Individual session keys produced by a handshake should also be distinct and independent. Downgrade protection: The cryptographic parameters should be the

same on both sides and should be the same as if the peers had been
communicating in the absence of an attack (see [BBFGKZ16], Definitions 8 and 9). Forward secret with respect to long-term keys: If the long-term

keying material (in this case the signature keys in certificate

based authentication modes or the external/resumption PSK in PSK

with (EC)DHE modes) is compromised after the handshake is
complete, this does not compromise the security of the session key (see [DOW92]), as long as the session key itself has been erased.

The forward secrecy property is not satisfied when PSK is used in
the "psk_ke" PskKeyExchangeMode. Key Compromise Impersonation (KCI) resistance: In a mutually authenticated connection with certificates, compromising the long-term secret of one actor should not break that actor's

authentication of their peer in the given connection (see
[HGFS15]). For example, if a client's signature key is compromised, it should not be possible to impersonate arbitrary servers to that client in subsequent handshakes. Protection of endpoint identities: The server's identity (certificate) should be protected against passive attackers. The client's identity should be protected against both passive and active attackers. Informally, the signature-based modes of TLS 1.3 provide for the establishment of a unique, secret, shared key established by an (EC)DHE key exchange and authenticated by the server's signature over the handshake transcript, as well as tied to the server's identity by a MAC. If the client is authenticated by a certificate, it also

signs over the handshake transcript and provides a MAC tied to both
identities. [SIGMA] describes the design and analysis of this type of key exchange protocol. If fresh (EC)DHE keys are used for each connection, then the output keys are forward secret.

The external PSK and resumption PSK bootstrap from a long-term shared
secret into a unique per-connection set of short-term session keys. This secret may have been established in a previous handshake. If PSK with (EC)DHE key establishment is used, these session keys will also be forward secret. The resumption PSK has been designed so that

the resumption master secret computed by connection N and needed to
form connection N+1 is separate from the traffic keys used by Rescorla Standards Track [Page 143]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
connection N, thus providing forward secrecy between the connections. In addition, if multiple tickets are established on the same connection, they are associated with different keys, so compromise of

the PSK associated with one ticket does not lead to the compromise of
connections established with PSKs associated with other tickets.

This property is most interesting if tickets are stored in a database
(and so can be deleted) rather than if they are self-encrypted.

The PSK binder value forms a binding between a PSK and the current
handshake, as well as between the session where the PSK was established and the current session. This binding transitively includes the original handshake transcript, because that transcript

is digested into the values which produce the resumption master
secret. This requires that both the KDF used to produce the

resumption master secret and the MAC used to compute the binder be
collision resistant. See Appendix E.1.1 for more on this. Note: The binder does not cover the binder values from other PSKs, though they are included in the Finished MAC.

TLS does not currently permit the server to send a
certificate_request message in non-certificate-based handshakes (e.g., PSK). If this restriction were to be relaxed in future, the client's signature would not cover the server's certificate directly. However, if the PSK was established through a NewSessionTicket, the client's signature would transitively cover the server's certificate through the PSK binder. [PSK-FINISHED] describes a concrete attack on constructions that do not bind to the server's certificate (see also [Kraw16]). It is unsafe to use certificate-based client

authentication when the client might potentially share the same
PSK/key-id pair with two different endpoints. Implementations

MUST NOT combine external PSKs with certificate-based authentication

of either the client or the server unless negotiated by some
extension. If an exporter is used, then it produces values which are unique and secret (because they are generated from a unique session key).

Exporters computed with different labels and contexts are
computationally independent, so it is not feasible to compute one from another or the session secret from the exported value. Note: Exporters can produce arbitrary-length values; if exporters are to be used as channel bindings, the exported value MUST be large enough to provide collision resistance. The exporters provided in TLS 1.3 are derived from the same Handshake Contexts as the early traffic keys and the application traffic keys, respectively, and thus have similar security properties. Note that they do not include the client's certificate; future applications which wish to bind to the client's certificate may need to define a new exporter that includes the full handshake transcript. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 144]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
For all handshake modes, the Finished MAC (and, where present, the signature) prevents downgrade attacks. In addition, the use of certain bytes in the random nonces as described in Section 4.1.3 allows the detection of downgrade to previous TLS versions. See [BBFGKZ16] for more details on TLS 1.3 and downgrade.

As soon as the client and the server have exchanged enough
information to establish shared keys, the remainder of the handshake is encrypted, thus providing protection against passive attackers, even if the computed shared key is not authenticated. Because the server authenticates before the client, the client can ensure that if it authenticates to the server, it only reveals its identity to an authenticated server. Note that implementations must use the

provided record-padding mechanism during the handshake to avoid
leaking information about the identities due to length. The client's proposed PSK identities are not encrypted, nor is the one that the server selects. E.1.1. Key Derivation and HKDF Key derivation in TLS 1.3 uses HKDF as defined in [RFC5869] and its two components, HKDF-Extract and HKDF-Expand. The full rationale for the HKDF construction can be found in [Kraw10] and the rationale for the way it is used in TLS 1.3 in [KW16]. Throughout this document,

each application of HKDF-Extract is followed by one or more
invocations of HKDF-Expand. This ordering should always be followed (including in future revisions of this document); in particular, one

SHOULD NOT use an output of HKDF-Extract as an input to another
application of HKDF-Extract without an HKDF-Expand in between.

Multiple applications of HKDF-Expand to some of the same inputs are

allowed as long as these are differentiated via the key and/or the
labels.

Note that HKDF-Expand implements a pseudorandom function (PRF) with
both inputs and outputs of variable length. In some of the uses of HKDF in this document (e.g., for generating exporters and the resumption_master_secret), it is necessary that the application of HKDF-Expand be collision resistant; namely, it should be infeasible

to find two different inputs to HKDF-Expand that output the same
value. This requires the underlying hash function to be collision

resistant and the output length from HKDF-Expand to be of size at

least 256 bits (or as much as needed for the hash function to prevent
finding collisions). Rescorla Standards Track [Page 145]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
E.1.2. Client Authentication A client that has sent authentication data to a server, either during the handshake or in post-handshake authentication, cannot be sure

whether the server afterwards considers the client to be
authenticated or not. If the client needs to determine if the server

considers the connection to be unilaterally or mutually
authenticated, this has to be provisioned by the application layer. See [CHHSV17] for details. In addition, the analysis of post-handshake authentication from [Kraw16] shows that the client

identified by the certificate sent in the post-handshake phase
possesses the traffic key. This party is therefore the client that

participated in the original handshake or one to whom the original

client delegated the traffic key (assuming that the traffic key has
not been compromised). E.1.3. 0-RTT

The 0-RTT mode of operation generally provides security properties
similar to those of 1-RTT data, with the two exceptions that the 0-RTT encryption keys do not provide full forward secrecy and that

the server is not able to guarantee uniqueness of the handshake
(non-replayability) without keeping potentially undue amounts of state. See Section 8 for mechanisms to limit the exposure to replay. E.1.4. Exporter Independence The exporter_master_secret and early_exporter_master_secret are

derived to be independent of the traffic keys and therefore do not

represent a threat to the security of traffic encrypted with those
keys. However, because these secrets can be used to compute any exporter value, they SHOULD be erased as soon as possible. If the total set of exporter labels is known, then implementations SHOULD

pre-compute the inner Derive-Secret stage of the exporter computation
for all those labels, then erase the [early_]exporter_master_secret,

followed by each inner value as soon as it is known that it will not
be needed again. E.1.5. Post-Compromise Security

TLS does not provide security for handshakes which take place after
the peer's long-term secret (signature key or external PSK) is compromised. It therefore does not provide post-compromise security [CCG16], sometimes also referred to as backward or future secrecy. This is in contrast to KCI resistance, which describes the security

guarantees that a party has after its own long-term secret has been
compromised. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 146]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
E.1.6. External References

The reader should refer to the following references for analysis of
the TLS handshake: [DFGS15], [CHSV16], [DFGS16], [KW16], [Kraw16], [FGSW16], [LXZFH16], [FG17], and [BBK17]. E.2. Record Layer

The record layer depends on the handshake producing strong traffic

secrets which can be used to derive bidirectional encryption keys and
nonces. Assuming that is true, and the keys are used for no more data than indicated in Section 5.5, then the record layer should provide the following guarantees: Confidentiality: An attacker should not be able to determine the plaintext contents of a given record. Integrity: An attacker should not be able to craft a new record

which is different from an existing record which will be accepted
by the receiver. Order protection/non-replayability: An attacker should not be able

to cause the receiver to accept a record which it has already
accepted or cause the receiver to accept record N+1 without having first processed record N. Length concealment: Given a record with a given external length, the

attacker should not be able to determine the amount of the record
that is content versus padding. Forward secrecy after key change: If the traffic key update mechanism described in Section 4.6.3 has been used and the previous generation key is deleted, an attacker who compromises

the endpoint should not be able to decrypt traffic encrypted with
the old key. Informally, TLS 1.3 provides these properties by AEAD-protecting the plaintext with a strong key. AEAD encryption [RFC5116] provides confidentiality and integrity for the data. Non-replayability is provided by using a separate nonce for each record, with the nonce being derived from the record sequence number (Section 5.3), with the sequence number being maintained independently at both sides; thus,

records which are delivered out of order result in AEAD deprotection
failures. In order to prevent mass cryptanalysis when the same

plaintext is repeatedly encrypted by different users under the same
key (as is commonly the case for HTTP), the nonce is formed by mixing Rescorla Standards Track [Page 147]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

the sequence number with a secret per-connection initialization
vector derived along with the traffic keys. See [BT16] for analysis of this construction. The rekeying technique in TLS 1.3 (see Section 7.2) follows the construction of the serial generator as discussed in [REKEY], which

shows that rekeying can allow keys to be used for a larger number of
encryptions than without rekeying. This relies on the security of the HKDF-Expand-Label function as a pseudorandom function (PRF). In addition, as long as this function is truly one way, it is not

possible to compute traffic keys from prior to a key change (forward
secrecy).

TLS does not provide security for data which is communicated on a
connection after a traffic secret of that connection is compromised. That is, TLS does not provide post-compromise security/future secrecy/backward secrecy with respect to the traffic secret. Indeed,

an attacker who learns a traffic secret can compute all future
traffic secrets on that connection. Systems which want such

guarantees need to do a fresh handshake and establish a new
connection with an (EC)DHE exchange. E.2.1. External References

The reader should refer to the following references for analysis of
the TLS record layer: [BMMRT15], [BT16], [BDFKPPRSZZ16], [BBK17], and [PS18]. E.3. Traffic Analysis

TLS is susceptible to a variety of traffic analysis attacks based on
observing the length and timing of encrypted packets [CLINIC] [HCJC16]. This is particularly easy when there is a small set of possible messages to be distinguished, such as for a video server hosting a fixed corpus of content, but still provides usable information even in more complicated scenarios.

TLS does not provide any specific defenses against this form of
attack but does include a padding mechanism for use by applications:

The plaintext protected by the AEAD function consists of content plus
variable-length padding, which allows the application to produce

arbitrary-length encrypted records as well as padding-only cover

traffic to conceal the difference between periods of transmission and
periods of silence. Because the padding is encrypted alongside the actual content, an attacker cannot directly determine the length of

the padding but may be able to measure it indirectly by the use of
timing channels exposed during record processing (i.e., seeing how

long it takes to process a record or trickling in records to see
Rescorla Standards Track [Page 148]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
which ones elicit a response from the server). In general, it is not

known how to remove all of these channels because even a

constant-time padding removal function will likely feed the content
into data-dependent functions. At minimum, a fully constant-time

server or client would require close cooperation with the
application-layer protocol implementation, including making that higher-level protocol constant time. Note: Robust traffic analysis defenses will likely lead to inferior

performance due to delays in transmitting packets and increased
traffic volume. E.4. Side-Channel Attacks In general, TLS does not have specific defenses against side-channel attacks (i.e., those which attack the communications via secondary channels such as timing), leaving those to the implementation of the relevant cryptographic primitives. However, certain features of TLS are designed to make it easier to write side-channel resistant code:

• Unlike previous versions of TLS which used a composite MAC-then
  encrypt structure, TLS 1.3 only uses AEAD algorithms, allowing

implementations to use self-contained constant-time
implementations of those primitives.

• TLS uses a uniform "bad_record_mac" alert for all decryption
  errors, which is intended to prevent an attacker from gaining piecewise insight into portions of the message. Additional

resistance is provided by terminating the connection on such
errors; a new connection will have different cryptographic material, preventing attacks against the cryptographic primitives that require multiple trials.

Information leakage through side channels can occur at layers above
TLS, in application protocols and the applications that use them.

Resistance to side-channel attacks depends on applications and

application protocols separately ensuring that confidential
information is not inadvertently leaked. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 149]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
E.5. Replay Attacks on 0-RTT

Replayable 0-RTT data presents a number of security threats to TLS
using applications, unless those applications are specifically engineered to be safe under replay (minimally, this means idempotent, but in many cases may also require other stronger conditions, such as constant-time response). Potential attacks include:

• Duplication of actions which cause side effects (e.g., purchasing
  an item or transferring money) to be duplicated, thus harming the site or the user.
• Attackers can store and replay 0-RTT messages in order to reorder
  them with respect to other messages (e.g., moving a delete to after a create).
• Exploiting cache timing behavior to discover the content of 0-RTT

messages by replaying a 0-RTT message to a different cache node
and then using a separate connection to measure request latency, to see if the two requests address the same resource. If data can be replayed a large number of times, additional attacks become possible, such as making repeated measurements of the speed of cryptographic operations. In addition, they may be able to overload rate-limiting systems. For a further description of these attacks, see [Mac17]. Ultimately, servers have the responsibility to protect themselves against attacks employing 0-RTT data replication. The mechanisms

described in Section 8 are intended to prevent replay at the TLS

layer but do not provide complete protection against receiving
multiple copies of client data. TLS 1.3 falls back to the 1-RTT

handshake when the server does not have any information about the
client, e.g., because it is in a different cluster which does not

share state or because the ticket has been deleted as described in
Section 8.1. If the application-layer protocol retransmits data in this setting, then it is possible for an attacker to induce message

duplication by sending the ClientHello to both the original cluster
(which processes the data immediately) and another cluster which will

fall back to 1-RTT and process the data upon application-layer
replay. The scale of this attack is limited by the client's

willingness to retry transactions and therefore only allows a limited
amount of duplication, with each copy appearing as a new connection at the server. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 150]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
If implemented correctly, the mechanisms described in Sections 8.1 and 8.2 prevent a replayed ClientHello and its associated 0-RTT data

from being accepted multiple times by any cluster with consistent
state; for servers which limit the use of 0-RTT to one cluster for a single ticket, then a given ClientHello and its associated 0-RTT data will only be accepted once. However, if state is not completely consistent, then an attacker might be able to have multiple copies of the data be accepted during the replication window. Because clients do not know the exact details of server behavior, they MUST NOT send

messages in early data which are not safe to have replayed and which
they would not be willing to retry across multiple 1-RTT connections.

Application protocols MUST NOT use 0-RTT data without a profile that
defines its use. That profile needs to identify which messages or

interactions are safe to use with 0-RTT and how to handle the
situation when the server rejects 0-RTT and falls back to 1-RTT. In addition, to avoid accidental misuse, TLS implementations MUST NOT

enable 0-RTT (either sending or accepting) unless specifically

requested by the application and MUST NOT automatically resend 0-RTT

data if it is rejected by the server unless instructed by the
application. Server-side applications may wish to implement special

processing for 0-RTT data for some kinds of application traffic
(e.g., abort the connection, request that data be resent at the application layer, or delay processing until the handshake completes). In order to allow applications to implement this kind of processing, TLS implementations MUST provide a way for the application to determine if the handshake has completed. E.5.1. Replay and Exporters Replays of the ClientHello produce the same early exporter, thus requiring additional care by applications which use these exporters. In particular, if these exporters are used as an authentication channel binding (e.g., by signing the output of the exporter), an

attacker who compromises the PSK can transplant authenticators
between connections without compromising the authentication key. In addition, the early exporter SHOULD NOT be used to generate

server-to-client encryption keys because that would entail the reuse
of those keys. This parallels the use of the early application traffic keys only in the client-to-server direction. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 151]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018
E.6. PSK Identity Exposure

Because implementations respond to an invalid PSK binder by aborting
the handshake, it may be possible for an attacker to verify whether a given PSK identity is valid. Specifically, if a server accepts both external-PSK handshakes and certificate-based handshakes, a valid PSK identity will result in a failed handshake, whereas an invalid

identity will just be skipped and result in a successful certificate
handshake. Servers which solely support PSK handshakes may be able

to resist this form of attack by treating the cases where there is no

valid PSK identity and where there is an identity but it has an
invalid binder identically. E.7. Sharing PSKs TLS 1.3 takes a conservative approach to PSKs by binding them to a specific KDF. By contrast, TLS 1.2 allows PSKs to be used with any hash function and the TLS 1.2 PRF. Thus, any PSK which is used with both TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3 must be used with only one hash in TLS 1.3, which is less than optimal if users want to provision a single PSK. The constructions in TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3 are different, although they are both based on HMAC. While there is no known way in which the same PSK might produce related output in both versions, only limited analysis has been done. Implementations can ensure safety from cross-protocol related output by not reusing PSKs between TLS 1.3 and TLS 1.2. E.8. Attacks on Static RSA Although TLS 1.3 does not use RSA key transport and so is not directly susceptible to Bleichenbacher-type attacks [Blei98], if TLS 1.3 servers also support static RSA in the context of previous versions of TLS, then it may be possible to impersonate the server for TLS 1.3 connections [JSS15]. TLS 1.3 implementations can prevent

this attack by disabling support for static RSA across all versions
of TLS. In principle, implementations might also be able to separate

certificates with different keyUsage bits for static RSA decryption
and RSA signature, but this technique relies on clients refusing to

accept signatures using keys in certificates that do not have the
digitalSignature bit set, and many clients do not enforce this restriction. Rescorla Standards Track [Page 152]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

Contributors

Martin Abadi
University of California, Santa Cruz abadi@cs.ucsc.edu

Christopher Allen
(co-editor of TLS 1.0)

Alacrity Ventures
ChristopherA@AlacrityManagement.com

Richard Barnes
Cisco rlb@ipv.sx Steven M. Bellovin

Columbia University
smb@cs.columbia.edu

David Benjamin
Google davidben@google.com

Benjamin Beurdouche
INRIA & Microsoft Research benjamin.beurdouche@ens.fr

Karthikeyan Bhargavan
(editor of [RFC7627]) INRIA karthikeyan.bhargavan@inria.fr

Simon Blake-Wilson
(co-author of [RFC4492]) BCI sblakewilson@bcisse.com

Nelson Bolyard
(co-author of [RFC4492]) Sun Microsystems, Inc. nelson@bolyard.com

Ran Canetti
IBM canetti@watson.ibm.com Rescorla Standards Track [Page 153]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

Matt Caswell
OpenSSL matt@openssl.org

Stephen Checkoway

University of Illinois at Chicago
sfc@uic.edu

Pete Chown

Skygate Technology Ltd
pc@skygate.co.uk

Katriel Cohn-Gordon

University of Oxford
me@katriel.co.uk

Cas Cremers

University of Oxford
cas.cremers@cs.ox.ac.uk

Antoine Delignat-Lavaud
(co-author of [RFC7627]) INRIA antdl@microsoft.com

Tim Dierks
(co-author of TLS 1.0, co-editor of TLS 1.1 and 1.2)

Independent
tim@dierks.org

Roelof DuToit

Symantec Corporation
roelof_dutoit@symantec.com

Taher Elgamal
Securify taher@securify.com

Pasi Eronen
Nokia pasi.eronen@nokia.com

Cedric Fournet

Microsoft
fournet@microsoft.com Rescorla Standards Track [Page 154]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

Anil Gangolli
anil@busybuddha.org David M. Garrett dave@nulldereference.com

Illya Gerasymchuk

Independent
illya@iluxonchik.me

Alessandro Ghedini
Cloudflare Inc. alessandro@cloudflare.com

Daniel Kahn Gillmor
ACLU dkg@fifthhorseman.net

Matthew Green

Johns Hopkins University
mgreen@cs.jhu.edu

Jens Guballa
ETAS jens.guballa@etas.com

Felix Guenther

TU Darmstadt
mail@felixguenther.info

Vipul Gupta
(co-author of [RFC4492])

Sun Microsystems Laboratories
vipul.gupta@sun.com

Chris Hawk
(co-author of [RFC4492])

Corriente Networks LLC
chris@corriente.net

Kipp Hickman

Alfred Hoenes

David Hopwood

Independent Consultant
david.hopwood@blueyonder.co.uk Rescorla Standards Track [Page 155]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

Marko Horvat
MPI-SWS mhorvat@mpi-sws.org

Jonathan Hoyland
Royal Holloway, University of London jonathan.hoyland@gmail.com

Subodh Iyengar
Facebook subodh@fb.com

Benjamin Kaduk

Akamai Technologies
kaduk@mit.edu

Hubert Kario
Red Hat Inc. hkario@redhat.com

Phil Karlton
(co-author of SSL 3.0)

Leon Klingele

Independent
mail@leonklingele.de

Paul Kocher
(co-author of SSL 3.0)

Cryptography Research
paul@cryptography.com

Hugo Krawczyk
IBM hugokraw@us.ibm.com

Adam Langley
(co-author of [RFC7627]) Google agl@google.com

Olivier Levillain
ANSSI olivier.levillain@ssi.gouv.fr Rescorla Standards Track [Page 156]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

Xiaoyin Liu

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
xiaoyin.l@outlook.com

Ilari Liusvaara

Independent
ilariliusvaara@welho.com

Atul Luykx
K.U. Leuven atul.luykx@kuleuven.be

Colm MacCarthaigh

Amazon Web Services
colm@allcosts.net

Carl Mehner
USAA carl.mehner@usaa.com

Jan Mikkelsen

Transactionware
janm@transactionware.com

Bodo Moeller
(co-author of [RFC4492]) Google bodo@acm.org

Kyle Nekritz
Facebook knekritz@fb.com

Erik Nygren

Akamai Technologies
erik+ietf@nygren.org

Magnus Nystrom

Microsoft
mnystrom@microsoft.com

Kazuho Oku
DeNA Co., Ltd. kazuhooku@gmail.com Rescorla Standards Track [Page 157]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

Kenny Paterson
Royal Holloway, University of London kenny.paterson@rhul.ac.uk

Christopher Patton

University of Florida
cjpatton@ufl.edu

Alfredo Pironti
(co-author of [RFC7627]) INRIA alfredo.pironti@inria.fr

Andrei Popov

Microsoft
andrei.popov@microsoft.com

Marsh Ray
(co-author of [RFC7627])

Microsoft
maray@microsoft.com

Robert Relyea

Netscape Communications
relyea@netscape.com

Kyle Rose

Akamai Technologies
krose@krose.org

Jim Roskind
Amazon jroskind@amazon.com

Michael Sabin

Joe Salowey

Tableau Software
joe@salowey.net

Rich Salz
Akamai rsalz@akamai.com

David Schinazi
Apple Inc. dschinazi@apple.com Rescorla Standards Track [Page 158]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

Sam Scott
Royal Holloway, University of London me@samjs.co.uk

Thomas Shrimpton

University of Florida
teshrim@ufl.edu

Dan Simon
Microsoft, Inc. dansimon@microsoft.com

Brian Smith

Independent
brian@briansmith.org

Brian Sniffen

Akamai Technologies
ietf@bts.evenmere.org

Nick Sullivan
Cloudflare Inc. nick@cloudflare.com

Bjoern Tackmann
University of California, San Diego btackmann@eng.ucsd.edu

Tim Taubert
Mozilla ttaubert@mozilla.com

Martin Thomson
Mozilla mt@mozilla.com

Hannes Tschofenig

Arm Limited
Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com

Sean Turner
sn3rd sean@sn3rd.com

Steven Valdez
Google svaldez@google.com Rescorla Standards Track [Page 159]

RFC 8446 TLS August 2018

Filippo Valsorda
Cloudflare Inc. filippo@cloudflare.com

Thyla van der Merwe
Royal Holloway, University of London tjvdmerwe@gmail.com

Victor Vasiliev
Google vasilvv@google.com

Hoeteck Wee
Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris hoeteck@alum.mit.edu

Tom Weinstein

David Wong

NCC Group
david.wong@nccgroup.trust Christopher A. Wood Apple Inc. cawood@apple.com

Tim Wright
Vodafone timothy.wright@vodafone.com Peter Wu

Independent
peter@lekensteyn.nl

Kazu Yamamoto
Internet Initiative Japan Inc. kazu@iij.ad.jp Author's Address

Eric Rescorla
Mozilla Email: ekr@rtfm.com Rescorla Standards Track [Page 160]