]> Google LLC

bbe@google.com

Google LLC

davidben@google.com

Google LLC

asymmetric@google.com

Security Transport Layer Security This document defines the TLS Trust Anchors extension, a mechanism for relying parties to convey trusted certification authorities. It describes individual certification authorities more succinctly than the TLS Certificate Authorities extension. Additionally, to support TLS clients with many trusted certification authorities, it supports a mode where servers describe their available certification paths and the client selects from them. Servers may describe this during connection setup, or in DNS for lower latency. About This Document The latest revision of this draft can be found at . Status information for this document may be found at . Discussion of this document takes place on the Transport Layer Security Working Group mailing list (), which is archived at . Subscribe at . Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at .

Introduction TLS authentication uses X.509 certificates to associate the authenticating party's TLS key with its application identifiers, such as DNS names. These associations are signed by some certificate authority (CA). The peer, or relying party, curates a set of CAs that are trusted to only sign correct associations, which allows it to rely on the TLS to authenticate application identifiers. Typically the authenticating party is the server and the relying party is the client. An authenticating party may need to interoperate with relying parties that trust different sets of CAs. defines the certificate_authorities extension to accommodate this. It allows the authenticating party to provision multiple certificates and select the one that will allow the relying party to accept its TLS key. This is analogous to parameter negotiation elsewhere in TLS. However, certificate_authorities's size is impractical for some applications. Existing PKIs may have many CAs, and existing CAs may have long X.509 names. As of August 2023, the Mozilla CA Certificate Program contained 144 CAs, with an average name length of around 100 bytes. Such TLS deployments often do not use trust anchor negotiation at all. Without a negotiation mechanism, the authenticating party must obtain a single certificate that simultaneously satisfies all relying parties. This is challenging when relying parties are diverse. PKI transitions, including those necessary for user security, naturally lead to relying party diversity, so the result is that service availability conflicts with security and overall PKI evolution:

• For an authenticating party to use a CA in its single certificate, all supported relying parties must trust the CA. PKI transitions then become difficult when authentiating parties support older, unupdated relying parties. This impacts both new keys from existing CA operators and new CA operators.
• When a relying party must update its policies to meet new security requirements, it adds to relying party diversity and the challenges that authenticating parties and CAs face. The relying party must then choose between compromising on user security or burdening the rest of the ecosystem, potentially impacting availability in the process.

To address this, this document introduces Trust Anchor Identifiers. There are four parts to this mechanism:

1. defines trust anchor identifiers, which are short, unique identifiers for X.509 trust anchors.
2. defines a TLS extension that communicates the relying party's requested trust anchors, and the authenticating party's available ones. When the relying party is a TLS client, it can mitigate large lists by sending a, possibly empty, subset of its trust anchors to the TLS server. The server provides its list of available trust anchors in response so that the client can retry on mismatch.
3. allows TLS servers to advertise their available trust anchors in HTTPS or SVCB DNS records. TLS clients can then request an accurate initial subset and avoid a retry penalty.
4. defines an ACME extension for provisioning multiple certification paths, each with an associated trust anchor identifier.

Together, they reduce the size costs of trust anchor negotiation, supporting flexible and robust PKIs for more applications.

Conventions and Definitions 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 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. This document additionally uses the TLS presentation language, defined in , and ASN.1, defined in .

Terminology and Roles This document discusses three roles:

Authenticating party:

The party authenticating itself in the protocol. In TLS, this is the side sending the Certificate and CertificateVerify message.

Relying party:

The party whom the authenticating party presents its identity to. In TLS, this is the side that validates a Certificate and CertificateVerify message.

Certification authority (CA):

The service issuing certificates to the authenticating party.

Additionally, there are several terms used throughout this document to describe this proposal:

Trust anchor:

A pre-distributed public key or certificate that relying parties use to determine whether a certification path is trusted.

Certification path:

An ordered list of X.509 certificates starting with the target certificate. Each certificate is issued by the next certificate, except the last, which is issued by a trust anchor.

CertificatePropertyList:

A structure associated with a certification path, containing additional information from the CA, for use by the authenticating party when presenting the certification path.

Trust Anchor Identifiers This section defines trust anchor identifiers, which are short, unique identifiers for a trust anchor. To simplify allocation, these identifiers are defined with object identifiers (OIDs) and IANA-registered Private Enterprise Numbers (PENs) : A trust anchor identifier is defined with a OID under the OID arc of some PEN. For compactness, they are represented as relative object identifiers (see Section 33 of ), relative to the OID prefix 1.3.6.1.4.1. For example, an organization with PEN 32473 might define a trust anchor identifier with the OID 1.3.6.1.4.1.32473.1. As a relative object identifier, it would be the OID 32473.1. Depending on the protocol, trust anchor identifiers may be represented in one of three ways:

• For use in ASN.1-based protocols, a trust anchor identifier's ASN.1 representation is the relative object identifier described above. This may be encoded in DER , or some other ASN.1 encoding. The example identifier's DER encoding is the six-octet sequence {0x0d, 0x04, 0x81, 0xfd, 0x59, 0x01}.
• For use in binary protocols such as TLS, a trust anchor identifier's binary representation consists of the contents octets of the relative object identifier's DER encoding, as described in Section 8.20 of . Note this omits the tag and length portion of the encoding. The example identifier's binary representation is the four-octet sequence {0x81, 0xfd, 0x59, 0x01}.
• For use in ASCII-compatible text protocols, a trust anchor identifier's ASCII representation is the relative object identifier in dotted decimal notation. The example identifier's ASCII representation is 32473.1.

Trust anchor identifiers SHOULD be allocated by the CA operator and common among relying parties that trust the CA. They MAY be allocated by another party, e.g. when bootstrapping an existing ecosystem, if all parties agree on the identifier. In particular, the protocol requires authenticating and relying parties to agree, and the authenticating party's configuration typically comes from the CA. The length of a trust anchor identifier's binary representation MUST NOT exceed 255 bytes. It SHOULD be significantly shorter, for bandwidth efficiency.

Certificate Properties This document introduces an extensible CertificatePropertyList structure for CAs to communicate additional information to authenticating parties, such as associated trust anchor identifiers. A CertificatePropertyList is defined using the TLS presentation language () below: ; } CertificateProperty; CertificateProperty CertificatePropertyList<0..2^16-1>; ]]> The entries in a CertificatePropertyList MUST be sorted numerically by type and MUST NOT contain values with a duplicate type. Inputs that do not satisfy these invariants are syntax errors and MUST be rejected by parsers. This document defines a single property, trust_anchor_identifier. The data field of the property contains the binary representation of the trust anchor identifier of the certification path's trust anchor, as described in . Future documents may define other properties for use with other mechanisms. Authenticating parties MUST ignore unrecognized properties with CertificatePropertyType values.

Relying Party Configuration Relying parties are configured with one or more supported trust anchors. Each trust anchor which participates in this protocol must have an associated trust anchor identifier. When trust anchors are self-signed X.509 certificates, the X.509 trust anchor identifier extension MAY be used to carry this identifier. The trust anchor identifier extension has an extnID of id-trustAnchorIdentifier and an extnValue containing a DER-encoded TrustAnchorIdentifier structure, defined below. The TrustAnchorIdentifier is the trust anchor identifier's ASN.1 representation, described in . This extension MUST be non-critical. Relying parties MAY instead or additionally configure trust anchor identifiers via some application-specific out-of-band information. Relying parties MAY support trust anchors without associated trust anchor identifiers, but such trust anchors will not participate in this protocol. Those trust anchors MAY participate in other trust anchor negotiation protocols, such as the certificate_authorities extension.

Authenticating Party Configuration Authenticating parties are configured with one or more candidate certification paths to present in TLS, in some preference order. This preference order is used when multiple candidate paths are usable for a connection. For example, the authenticating party may prefer candidates that minimize message size or have more performant private keys. Each candidate path which participates in this protocol must be provisioned with the trust anchor identifier for its corresponding trust anchor in the CertificatePropertlyList. Authenticating parties MAY have candidate certification paths without associated trust anchor identifiers, but such paths will not participate in this protocol. Those paths MAY participate in other trust anchor negotiation protocols, such as the certificate_authorities extension.

TLS Extension This section defines the trust_anchors extension, which is sent in the ClientHello, EncryptedExtensions, CertificateRequest, and Certificate messages in TLS 1.3 or later.

Overview The trust_anchors extension is defined using the structures below: ; TrustAnchorIdentifier TrustAnchorIdentifierList<0..2^16-1>; ]]> When the extension is sent in the ClientHello or CertificateRequest messages, the extension_data is a TrustAnchorIdentifierList and indicates that the sender supports the specified trust anchors. The list is unordered, and MAY be empty. Each TrustAnchorIdentifier uses the binary representation, as described in . When the extension is sent in EncryptedExtensions, the extension_data is a TrustAnchorIdentifierList containing the list of trust anchors that server has available, in the server's preference order, and MUST NOT be empty. When the extension is sent in Certificate, the extension_data MUST be empty and indicates that the sender sent the certificate because the certificate matched a trust anchor identifier sent by the peer. When used in this form, the extension may only be sent in the first CertificateEntry. It MUST NOT be sent in subsequent ones.

Certificate Selection A trust_anchors extension in the ClientHello or CertificateRequest is processed similarly to the certificate_authorities extension. The relying party indicates some set of supported trust anchors in the ClientHello or CertificateRequest trust_anchors extension. The authenticating party then selects a certificate from its candidate certification paths (see ), as described in and . This process is extended as follows: If the ClientHello or CertificateRequest contains a trust_anchors extension, the authenticating party SHOULD send a certification path whose trust anchor identifier appears in the relying party's trust_anchors extension. If the ClientHello or CertificateRequest contains both trust_anchors and certificate_authorities, certification paths that satisfy either extension's criteria may be used. This additionally applies to future extensions which play a similar role. If no certification paths satisfy either extension, the authenticating party MAY return a handshake_failure alert, or choose among fallback certification paths without considering trust_anchors or certification_authorities. See for additional guidance on selecting a fallback when the ClientHello contains trust_anchors. Sending a fallback allows the authenticating party to retain support for relying parties that do not implement any form of trust anchor negotiation. In this case, the authenticating party must find a sufficiently ubiquitous trust anchor, if one exists. However, only those relying parties need to be considered in this ubiquity determination. Updated relying parties may continue to evolve without restricting fallback certificate selection. If the authenticating party sends a certification path that matches the relying party's trust_anchors extension, as described in , the authenticating party MUST send an empty trust_anchors extension in the first CertificateEntry of the Certificate message. In this case, the certificate_list flexibility described in no longer applies. The certificate_list MUST contain a complete certification path, issued by the matching trust anchor, correctly ordered and with no extraneous certificates. That is, each certificate MUST certify the one immediately preceding it, and the trust anchor MUST certify the final certificate. The authenticating party MUST NOT send the trust_anchors extension in the Certificate message in other situations. If a relying party receives this extension in the Certificate message, it MAY choose to disable path building and validate the peer's certificate list as pre-built certification path. Doing so avoids the unpredictable behavior of path-building, and helps ensure CAs and authenticating parties do not inadvertently provision incorrect paths.

Retry Mechanism When the relying party is a client, it may choose not to send its full trust anchor identifier list due to fingerprinting risks (see ), or because the list is too large. The client MAY send a subset of supported trust anchors, or an empty list. This subset may be determined by, possibly outdated, prior knowledge about the server, such as or past connections. To accommodate this, when receiving a ClientHello with trust_anchors, the server collects all candidate certification paths which:

• Have a trust anchor identifier, and
• Satisfy the conditions in , with the exception of certification_authorities, and any future extensions that play a similar role

If this collection is non-empty, the server sends a trust_anchors extension in EncryptedExtensions, containing the corresponding trust anchor identifiers in preference order. When a client sends a subset or empty list in trust_anchors, it SHOULD implement the following retry mechanism: If the client receives either a connection error or an untrusted certificate, the client looks in server's EncryptedExtensions for a trust anchor identifier that it trusts. If there are multiple, it selects an option based on the server's preference order and its local preferences. It then makes a new connection to the same endpoint, sending only the selected trust anchor identifier in the ClientHello trust_anchors extension. If the EncryptedExtensions had no trust_anchor extension, or no match was found, the client returns the error to the application. Clients SHOULD retry at most once per connection attempt. [[TODO: Retrying in a new connection is expensive and cannot be done from within the TLS stack in most implementations. Consider handshake modifications to instead retry within the same connection. https://github.com/davidben/tls-trust-expressions/issues/53 ]] This mechanism allows the connection to recover from a certificate selection failure, e.g. due to the client not revealing its full preference list, at additional latency cost. describes an optimization which can avoid this cost. This mechanism also allows servers to safely send fallback certificates that may not be as ubiquitously acceptable. Without some form of trust anchor negotiation, servers are limited to selecting certification paths that are ubiquitously trusted in all supported clients. This often means sending extra cross-certificates to target the lowest common denominator at a bandwidth cost. If the ClientHello contains trust_anchors, the server MAY opportunistically send a less ubiquitous, more bandwidth-efficient path based on local heuristics, with the expectation that the client will retry when the heuristics fail.

DNS Service Parameter This section defines the tls-trust-anchors SvcParamKey . TLS servers can use this to advertise their available trust anchors in DNS, and aid the client in formulating its trust_anchors extension (see ). This allows TLS deployments to support clients with many trust anchors without incurring the overhead of a reconnect.

Syntax The tls-trust-anchors parameter contains an ordered list of one or more trust anchor identifiers, in server preference order. The presentation value of the SvcParamValue is a non-empty comma-separated list (). Each element of the list is a trust anchor identifier in the ASCII representation defined in . Any other value is a syntax error. To enable simpler parsing, this SvcParam MUST NOT contain escape sequences. The wire format of the SvcParamValue is determined by prefixing each trust anchor identifier with its length as a single octet, then concatenating each of these length-value pairs to form the SvcParamValue. These pairs MUST exactly fill the SvcParamValue; otherwise, the SvcParamValue is malformed. For example, if a TLS server has three available certification paths issued by 32473.1, 32473.2.1, and 32473.2.2, respectively, the DNS record in presentation syntax may be: The wire format of the SvcParamValue would be the 17 octets below. In the example, the octets comprising each trust anchor identifier are placed on separate lines for clarity

Configuring Services Services SHOULD include the trust anchor identifier for each of their available certification paths, in preference order, in the tls-trust-anchors of their HTTPS or SVCB endpoints. As TLS configuration is updated, services SHOULD update the DNS record to match. The mechanism for this is out of scope for this document, but services are RECOMMENDED to automate this process. Services MAY have certification paths without trust anchor identifiers, but those paths will not participate in this mechanism.

Client Behavior When connecting to a service endpoint whose HTTPS or SVCB record contains the tls-trust-anchors parameter, the client first computes the intersection between its configured trust anchors and the server's provided list. If this intersection is non-empty, the client MAY use it to determine the trust_anchors extension in the ClientHello (see ). If doing so, the client MAY send a subset of this intersection to meet size constraints, but SHOULD offer multiple options. This reduces the chance of a reconnection if, for example, the first option in the intersection uses a signature algorithm that the client doesn't support, or if the TLS server and DNS configuration are out of sync. Although this service parameter is intended to reduce trust anchor mismatches, mismatches may still occur in some scenarios. Clients and servers MUST continue to implement the provisions described in , even when using this service parameter.

ACME Extension This section extends ACME to be able to issue certificate paths, each with an associated CertificatePropertyList by defining a new media type in . When an ACME server processes an order object, it MAY issue multiple certification paths, each with an associated Trust Anchor Identifier. The ACME server encodes each certification path using the application/pem-certificate-chain-with-properties format, defined in ). Note this format is required to form a complete certification path. The CA MUST return a result that may be verified by relying parties without path building . The ACME server provides additional results to the client with the link relation header fields described in . When fetching certificates, the ACME client includes application/pem-certificate-chain-with-properties in its Accept header to indicate it supports the new format. Unlike the original mechanism described in , these certification paths do not require heuristics to be used. Instead, the server uses the associated Trust Anchor Identifiers to select a path when requested. When the ACME client wishes to renew any of the certification paths issued in this order, it repeats this process to renew each path concurrently. Thus this extension is suitable when the CA is willing to issue and renew all paths together. It may not be appropriate if the paths have significantly different processing times or lifetimes. Future enhancements to ACME may be defined to address these cases, e.g. by allowing the ACME client to make independent orders.

Media Type A certification path with its associated CertificationPropertyList may be represented in a PEM structure in a file of type "application/pem-certificate-chain-with-properties". Files of this type MUST use the strict encoding and MUST NOT include explanatory text. The ABNF for this format is as follows, where "stricttextualmsg" and "eol" are as defined in : The first element MUST be the encoded CertificatePropertyList. The second element MUST be an end-entity certificate. Each following certificate MUST directly certify the one preceding it. The certificate representing the trust anchor MUST be omitted from the path. CertificatePropertyLists are encoded using the "CERTIFICATE PROPERTIES" label. The encoded data is a serialized CertificatePropertyList, defined in . Certificates are encoded as in , except DER MUST be used. The following is an example file with a certification path containing an end-entity certificate and an intermediate certificate. The IANA registration for this media type is described in .

Use Cases

Key Rotation In most X.509 deployments, a compromise of any root CA's private key compromises the entire PKI. Yet key rotation in PKIs is rare. In 2023, the oldest root in and was 25 years old, dating to 1998. Key rotation is challenging in a single-certificate deployment model. As long as any older relying party requires the old root, authenticating parties cannot switch to the new root, which in turn means relying parties cannot distrust the old root, leaving them vulnerable. A multi-certificate deployment model avoids these transition problems. Key rotation may proceed as follows:

1. The CA operator generates a new root CA with a separate key, but continues operating the old root CA.
2. Root programs begin trusting the new root CA alongside the old one, as a transition state. Both root CAs are configured to participate in trust anchor negotiation.
3. When authenticating parties request certificates, the CA operator issues certificates from both roots and provisions the authenticating party with both certificates.
4. Trust anchor negotiation selects the old root for relying parties that only trust the old root, and the new root for relying parties that only trust the new root. In transition, relying parties that trust both may be served either, but prioritizing the new root helps monitor the transition.
5. Once authenticating parties have been provisioned with new certificates, root programs can safely distrust the old root in new relying parties. The CA operator may continue to operate the old root CA for as long as it wishes to serve authenticating parties that, in turn, wish to serve older relying parties.

This process requires no configuration changes to the authenticating party, given an automated, multi-certificate-aware certificate issuance process. The authenticating party does not need to know why it received two certificates, only how to select between them for each relying party.

Adding CAs In the single-certificate model, authenticating parties cannot use TLS certificates issued from a new root CA until all supported relying parties have been updated to trust the new root CA. This can take years or more. Some relying parties, such as IoT devices, may never receive trust store updates at all. As a result, it is very difficult for authenticating parties that serve a wide variety of relying parties to use a newly-trusted root CA. When trust stores diverge too far, authenticating parties often must partition their services into multiple TLS endpoints (i.e. different DNS names) and direct different relying parties to different endpoints. Authenticating parties sometimes resort to TLS fingerprinting, to detect particular relying parties. But, as this repurposes other TLS fields for unintended purposes, this is unreliable and usually requires writing custom service-specific logic. In a multi-certificate deployment model, authenticating parties can begin serving certificates from new root CAs without interrupting relying parties that depend on existing ones. In some contexts, it may be possible to use other fields to select the new CA. For example, post-quantum-capable clients may be detected with the signature_algorithms and signature_algorithms_cert extensions. However, this assumes all post-quantum CAs are added at the same time. A multi-certificate model avoids this problem and allows for a more gradual deployment of post-quantum CAs.

Removing CAs Authenticating parties in a single-certificate model are limited to CAs in the intersection of their supported relying parties. As newer relying parties remove untrusted CAs over time,the intersection with older relying parties shrinks. Moreover, the authenticating party may not even know which CAs are in the intersection. Often, the only option is to try the new certificate and monitor errors. For authenticating parties that serve many diverse relying parties, this is a disruptive and risky process. The multi-certificate model removes this constraint. If an authenticating party's CA is distrusted, it can continue to use that CA, in addition to a newer one. This removes the risk that some older relying party required that CA and was incompatible with the new one. The mechanisms in this document will select an appropriate certificate for each relying party.

Other Root Transitions The mechanisms in this document can aid PKI transitions beyond key rotation. For example, a CA operator may generate a postquantum root CA and use the mechanism in to issue from the classical and postquantum roots concurrently. The authenticating party will then, transparently and with no configuration change, serve both. As in , newer relying parties can then remove the classical roots, while older relying parties continue to function. This same procedure may also be used to transition between newer, more size-efficient signature algorithms, as they are developed. [[TODO: There's one missing piece, which is that some servers may attempt to parse the signature algorithms out of the certificate chain. See https://github.com/davidben/tls-trust-expressions/issues/9 ]]

Intermediate Elision Today, root CAs typically issue shorter-lived intermediate certificates which, in turn, issue end-entity certificates. The long-lived root key is less exposed to attack, while the short-lived intermediate key can be more easily replaced without changes to relying parties. This operational improvement comes at a bandwidth cost: the TLS handshake includes an extra certificate, which includes a public key, signature, and X.509 metadata. An average X.509 name in the Chrome Root Store or Mozilla CA Certificate Program is around 100 bytes alone. Post-quantum signature algorithms will dramatically shift this tradeoff. Dilithium3 , for example, has a total public key and signature size of 5,245 bytes. proposes to predistribute known intermediate certificates to relying parties, as a compression scheme. A multi-certificate deployment model provides another way to achieve this effect. To relying parties, a predistributed intermediate certificate is functionally equivalent to a root certificate. PKIs use intermediate certificates because changing root certificates requires updating relying parties, but predistributed intermediates already presume updated relying parties. A CA operator could provide authenticating parties with two certification paths: a longer path ending at a long-lived trust anchor and shorter path the other ending at a short-lived, revocable root. Relying parties would be configured to trust both the long-lived root and the most recent short-lived root. A server that prioritizes the shorter path would then send the shorter path to up-to-date relying parties and the longer path to older relying parties. This achieves the same effect with a more general-purpose multi-certificate mechanism. It is also more flexible, as the two paths need not be related. For example, root CA public keys are not distributed in each TLS connection, so a post-quantum signature algorithm that optimizes for signature size may be preferable. In this model, both the long-lived and short-lived roots may use such an algorithm. In a compression-based model, the same intermediate must optimize both its compressed and uncompressed size, so such an algorithm may not be suitable.

Conflicting Relying Party Requirements An authenticating party may need to support relying parties with different requirements. For example, in contexts where online revocation checks are expensive, unreliable, or privacy-sensitive, user security is best served by short-lived certificates. In other contexts, long-lived certificates may be more appropriate for, e.g., systems that are offline for long periods of time or have unreliable clocks. A single-certificate deployment model forces authenticating parties to find a single certificate that meets all requirements. User security then suffers in all contexts, as the PKI may not quite meet anyone's needs. In a multi-certificate deployment model, different contexts may use different trust anchors. An authenticating party that supports multiple contexts would provision certificates for each, with certificate negotiation logic directing the right one to each relying party.

Backup Certificates An authenticating party may obtain certificate paths from multiple CAs for redundancy in the face of future CA compromises. If one CA is compromised and removed from newer relying parties, the TLS server software will transparently serve the other one. To support this, TLS serving software SHOULD permit users to configure multiple ACME endpoints and select from the union of the certificate paths returned by each ACME server.

Public Key Pinning To reduce the risk of attacks from misissued certificates, relying parties sometimes employ public key pinning . This enforces that one of some set of public keys appear in the final certificate path. This effectively reduces a relying party's trust anchor list to a subset of the original set. As other relying parties in the PKI evolve, the pinning relying party limits the authenticating party to satisfy both the pinning constraint and newer constraints in the PKI. This can lead to conflicts if, for example, the pinned CA is distrusted by a newer relying party. The authenticating party is then forced to either break the pinning relying party, or break the newer ones. This protocol reduces this conflict if the pinning relying party uses its effective, reduced trust anchor list. The authenticating party can then, as needed, use a certificate from the pinned CA with the pinning relying party, and another CA with newer relying parties.

Privacy Considerations

Relying Parties The negotiation mechanism described in this document is analogous to the certificate_authorities extension (), but more size-efficient. Like that extension, it presumes the requested trust anchor list is not sensitive. The privacy implications of this are determined by how a relying party uses this extension. Trust anchors supported by a relying party may be divided into three categories:

1. Trust anchors whose identifiers the relying party sends unconditionally, i.e. not in response to the server's HTTPS/SVCB record, trust anchor list in EncryptedExtensions, etc.
2. Trust anchors whose identifiers the relying party sends conditionally, i.e. only if the server offers them. For example, the relying party may indicate support for a trust anchor if its identifier is listed in the server's HTTPS/SVCB record or trust anchor list in EncryptedExtensions.
3. Trust anchors whose identifiers the relying party never sends, but still trusts. These are trust anchors which do not participate in this mechanism.

Each of these categories carries a different fingerprinting exposure: Trust anchor identifiers sent unconditionally can be observed passively. Thus, relying parties SHOULD NOT unconditionally advertise trust anchor lists which are unique to an individual user. Rather, such lists SHOULD be either empty or computed only from the trust anchors common to the relying party's anonymity set (). Trust anchor identifiers sent in response to the authenticating party can only be observed actively. That is, the authenticating party could vary its list and observe how the client responds, in order to probe for the client's trust anchor list. This is similar to the baseline exposure for trust anchors that do not participate in negotiation. An authenticating party in possession of a certificate can send it and determine if the relying party accepts or rejects it. Unlike this baseline exposure, trust anchors that participate in this protocol can be probed by only knowing the trust anchor identifier. Relying parties SHOULD determine which trust anchors participate in this mechanism, and whether to advertise them unconditionally or conditionally, based on their privacy goals. PKIs that reliably use the DNS service parameter () can rely on conditional advertisement for stronger privacy properties without a round-trip penalty. Additionally, a relying party that computes the trust_anchors extension based on prior state may allow observers to correlate across connections. Relying parties SHOULD NOT maintain such state across connections that are intended to be uncorrelated. As above, implementing the DNS service parameter can avoid a round-trip penalty without such state.

Authenticating Parties If the authenticating party is a server, the mechanisms in and enumerate the trust anchors for the server's available certification paths. This mechanism assumes they are not sensitive. Servers SHOULD NOT use this mechanism to negotiate certification paths with sensitive trust anchors. In servers that host multiple services, this protocol only enumerates certification paths for the requested service. If, for example, a server uses the server_name extension to select services, the addition to EncryptedExtensions in is expected to be filtered by server_name. Likewise, the DNS parameter in only contains information for the corresponding service. In both cases, co-located services are not revealed. The above does not apply if the authenticating party is a client. This protocol does not enumerate the available certification paths for a client.

Security Considerations

Relying Party Policies PKI-based TLS authentication depends on the relying party's certificate policies. If the relying party trusts an untrustworthy CA, that CA can intercept TLS connections made by that relying party by issuing certificates associating the target name with the wrong TLS key. This attack vector is available with or without trust anchor negotiation. The negotiation mechanism described in this document allows certificate selection to reflect a relying party's certificate policies. It does not determine the certificate policies themselves. Relying parties remain responsible for trusting only trustworthy CAs, and untrustworthy CAs remain a security risk when trusted.

Agility As with other TLS parameters, negotiation reduces a conflict between availability and security, which allows PKIs to better mitigate security risks to users. When relying parties in an existing TLS ecosystem improve their certificate policies, trust anchor negotiation helps authenticating parties navigate differences between those relying parties and existing relying parties. Each set of requirements may be satisfied without compatibility risk to the other. discusses such scenarios in more detail. Negotiation also reduces pressures on relying parties to sacrifice user security for compatibility. Suppose an authenticating party currently uses some CA, but a relying party deems trusting that CA to pose an unacceptable security risk to its users. In a single-certificate deployment, those authenticating parties may be unwilling to adopt a CA trusted by the relying party, as switching CAs risks compatibility problems elsewhere. The relying party then faces compatibility pressure and adds this CA, sacrificing user security. However, in a multi-certificate deployment, the authenticating party can use its existing CA in addition to another CA trusted by relying party B. This allows the ecosystem to improve interoperability, while still meeting relying party B's user-security goals.

Incorrect Selection Metadata If the authenticating party has incorrect information about trust anchor identifiers, it may send an untrusted certification path. This will not result in that path being trusted, but does present the possibility of a degradation of service. However, this information is provisioned by the CA, which is already expected to provide accurate information.

Serving Multiple Certificates Negotiation reduces compatibility pressures against authenticating parties choosing to serve certificates from a less common CA, as the authenticating party can serve it in addition to other CAs that, together, satisfy all supported relying parties. The CA may even have been distrusted by some relying parties, e.g. if it is needed for older, unupdated relying parties that are still important for the authenticating party to support. As discussed in and , this deployment model avoids compatibility risks during PKI transitions which mitigate security risks to users. Serving such certificates does not enable the CA to decrypt or intercept the connection. If a certificate asserts the correct information about the authenticating party, notably the correct public key, the authenticating party can safely present it, whether or not the issuing CA is otherwise trustworthy. Issuing a certificate for the authenticating party's public key does not grant the CA access to the corresponding private key. Conversely, if the attacker already has access to the authenticating party's private key, they do not need to be in control of a CA to intercept a connection. While the choice of CA is a security-critical decision in a PKI, it is the relying party's choice of trusted CAs that determines interceptibility, not the authenticating party's choice of certificates to present. If the relying party trusts an attacker-controlled CA, the attacker can intercept the connection independent of whether the authenticating party uses that CA or another CA. In both cases, the attacker would need to present a different certificate, with a different public key. Conversely, if the relying party does not trust the attacker's CA, the authenticating party's correct but untrusted attacker-issued certificate will not enable the attacker to substitute in a different public key. The ability to intercept a connection via the PKI is determined solely by relying party trust decisions. Relying parties thus SHOULD NOT interpret the authenticating party's choice of CA list as an endorsement of the CA. The authenticating party's role is to present a certificate which will demonstrate its name and TLS key to the relying party. Authenticating parties do not vet CAs for trustworthiness, only the correctness of their specific, configured certificates and the CA's ability to meet the authenticating party's requirements, such as availability, compatibility, and performance. It is the responsibility of the relying party, and its corresponding root program, to determine the set of trusted CAs. Trusting a CA means trusting all certificates issued by that CA, so it is not enough to observe authenticating parties serving correct certificates. An untrustworthy CA may sign one correct certificate, but also sign incorrect certificates, possibly in the future, that can attack the relying party. Root program management is a complex, security-critical process, the full considerations of which are outside the scope of this document.

Targeting TLS Interception Trust Anchor Identifiers, like certificate_authorities, enables a TLS server to differentiate between clients that do and do not trust some CA. If this CA mis-issued a certificate, this could be used by a network attacker to only enable TLS interception with clients that trust the CA. The network attacker may wish to do this reduce the odds of detection. Clients which do not trust the CA will not accept the mis-issued certificate, which may be user-visible. However, the attacker could also use any existing mechanism for differentiating clients. In TLS parameter negotiation, the client offers all its available TLS features, including cipher suites and other extensions, in the TLS ClientHello. This means any variation in any client TLS policies, related or unrelated to trust anchors, may be used as an implementation fingerprint to differentiate clients. While fingerprinting's heuristic nature makes it not viable for a broad, diverse set of TLS servers, it is viable for a network attacker's single interception service. Trust Anchor Identifiers only impacts detection where this differentiation was not already possible. If the attacker targets any clients that enforce Certificate Transparency , the mis-issued certificates will need to be publicly logged. In this case, detection is more robust, and client differentiation, with or without Trust Anchor Identifiers, has no significant impact.

IANA Considerations

TLS ExtensionType Updates IANA is requested to create the following entry in the TLS ExtensionType Values registry, defined by :

Value	Extension Name	TLS 1.3	DTLS-Only	Recommended	Reference
TBD	trust_anchors	CH, EE, CR, CT	N	Y	[this-RFC]

Media Type Updates IANA is requested to create the following entry in the "Media Types" registry, defined in :

Type name:

application

Subtype name:

pem-certificate-chain-with-properties

Required parameters:

None

Optional parameters:

None

Encoding considerations:

7bit

Security considerations:

Carries a cryptographic certificate and its associated certificate chain and additional properties. This media type carries no active content.

Interoperability considerations:

None

Published specification:

[this-RFC, ]

Applications that use this media type:

ACME clients and servers, HTTP servers, other applications that need to be configured with a certificate chain

Additional information:

Deprecated alias names for this type:

n/a

Magic number(s):

n/a

File extension(s):

.pem

Macintosh file type code(s):

n/a

Person & email address to contact for further information:

See Authors' Addresses section.

Intended usage:

COMMON

Restrictions on usage:

n/a

Author:

See Authors' Addresses section.

Change controller:

IETF

CertificatePropertyType Registry [[TODO: Establish a CertificatePropertyType registry.]]

References Normative References ITU-T ITU-T 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. This memo profiles the X.509 v3 certificate and X.509 v2 certificate revocation list (CRL) for use in the Internet. An overview of this approach and model is provided as an introduction. The X.509 v3 certificate format is described in detail, with additional information regarding the format and semantics of Internet name forms. Standard certificate extensions are described and two Internet-specific extensions are defined. A set of required certificate extensions is specified. The X.509 v2 CRL format is described in detail along with standard and Internet-specific extensions. An algorithm for X.509 certification path validation is described. An ASN.1 module and examples are provided in the appendices. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document specifies the "SVCB" ("Service Binding") and "HTTPS" DNS resource record (RR) types to facilitate the lookup of information needed to make connections to network services, such as for HTTP origins. SVCB records allow a service to be provided from multiple alternative endpoints, each with associated parameters (such as transport protocol configuration), and are extensible to support future uses (such as keys for encrypting the TLS ClientHello). They also enable aliasing of apex domains, which is not possible with CNAME. The HTTPS RR is a variation of SVCB for use with HTTP (see RFC 9110, "HTTP Semantics"). By providing more information to the client before it attempts to establish a connection, these records offer potential benefits to both performance and privacy. Public Key Infrastructure using X.509 (PKIX) certificates are used for a number of purposes, the most significant of which is the authentication of domain names. Thus, certification authorities (CAs) in the Web PKI are trusted to verify that an applicant for a certificate legitimately represents the domain name(s) in the certificate. As of this writing, this verification is done through a collection of ad hoc mechanisms. This document describes a protocol that a CA and an applicant can use to automate the process of verification and certificate issuance. The protocol also provides facilities for other certificate management functions, such as certificate revocation. In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings. This document describes how Private Enterprise Numbers (PENs) are registered by IANA. It shows how to request a new PEN and how to modify a current PEN. It also gives a brief overview of PEN uses. This document provides guidance and recommendations to developers building X.509 public-key certification paths within their applications. By following the guidance and recommendations defined in this document, an application developer is more likely to develop a robust X.509 certificate-enabled application that can build valid certification paths across a wide range of PKI environments. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This document describes and discusses the textual encodings of the Public-Key Infrastructure X.509 (PKIX), Public-Key Cryptography Standards (PKCS), and Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS). The textual encodings are well-known, are implemented by several applications and libraries, and are widely deployed. This document articulates the de facto rules by which existing implementations operate and defines them so that future implementations can interoperate. Internet technical specifications often need to define a formal syntax. Over the years, a modified version of Backus-Naur Form (BNF), called Augmented BNF (ABNF), has been popular among many Internet specifications. The current specification documents ABNF. It balances compactness and simplicity with reasonable representational power. The differences between standard BNF and ABNF involve naming rules, repetition, alternatives, order-independence, and value ranges. This specification also supplies additional rule definitions and encoding for a core lexical analyzer of the type common to several Internet specifications. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document offers guidance for developing privacy considerations for inclusion in protocol specifications. It aims to make designers, implementers, and users of Internet protocols aware of privacy-related design choices. It suggests that whether any individual RFC warrants a specific privacy considerations section will depend on the document's content. This document defines procedures for the specification and registration of media types for use in HTTP, MIME, and other Internet protocols. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice. Informative References Chromium Mozilla Mozilla This draft defines a new TLS Certificate Compression scheme which uses a shared dictionary of root and intermediate WebPKI certificates. The scheme smooths the transition to post-quantum certificates by eliminating the root and intermediate certificates from the TLS certificate chain without impacting trust negotiation. It also delivers better compression than alternative proposals whilst ensuring fair treatment for both CAs and website operators. It may also be useful in other applications which store certificate chains, e.g. Certificate Transparency logs. This document defines a new HTTP header that allows web host operators to instruct user agents to remember ("pin") the hosts' cryptographic identities over a period of time. During that time, user agents (UAs) will require that the host presents a certificate chain including at least one Subject Public Key Info structure whose fingerprint matches one of the pinned fingerprints for that host. By effectively reducing the number of trusted authorities who can authenticate the domain during the lifetime of the pin, pinning may reduce the incidence of man-in-the-middle attacks due to compromised Certification Authorities. This document describes an experimental protocol for publicly logging the existence of Transport Layer Security (TLS) certificates as they are issued or observed, in a manner that allows anyone to audit certificate authority (CA) activity and notice the issuance of suspect certificates as well as to audit the certificate logs themselves. The intent is that eventually clients would refuse to honor certificates that do not appear in a log, effectively forcing CAs to add all issued certificates to the logs. Logs are network services that implement the protocol operations for submissions and queries that are defined in this document. Google LLC Google LLC Google LLC This document defines TLS trust expressions, a mechanism for relying parties to succinctly convey trusted certification authorities to subscribers by referencing named and versioned trust stores. It also defines supporting mechanisms for subscribers to evaluate these trust expressions, and select one of several available certification paths to present. This enables a multi-certificate deployment model, for a more agile and flexible PKI that can better meet security requirements. Trinity College Dublin Akamai Technologies Meta Platforms, Inc. We define a well-known URI at which an HTTP origin can inform an authoritative DNS server, or other interested parties, about its Service Bindings. The data can include Encrypted ClientHello (ECH) configurations, allowing the origin, in collaboration with DNS infrastructure elements, to publish and rotate its own ECH keys. Note This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. The source for this draft is in https://github.com/sftcd/wkesni/ Issues and PRs are welcome there too.

Comparison to TLS Trust Expressions describes Trust Expressions, another trust anchor negotiation mechanism that aims to solve similar problems. The mechanisms differ in the following ways:

• trust_anchors is usable by more kinds of PKIs. Trust Expressions express trust anchor lists relative to named “trust stores”, maintained by root programs. Arbitrary lists may not be easily expressible. trust_anchors does not have this restriction.
• When used with large trust stores, the retry mechanism in trust_anchors requires a new connection. In most applications, this must be implemented outside the TLS stack, so more components must be changed and redeployed. In deployments that are limited by client changes, this may be a more difficult transition. [[TODO: See for an alternate retry scheme that avoids this.]]
• Trust Expressions works with static server configuration. An ideal trust_anchors deployment requires automation to synchronize a server's DNS and TLS configuration. could be a starting point for this automation. In deployments that are limited by server changes, this may be a more difficult transition.
• Trust Expressions require that CAs continually fetch information from manifests that are published by root programs, while trust_anchors relies only on static pre-assigned trust anchor identifiers.
• trust_anchors, when trust anchors are conditionally sent, has different fingerprinting properties. See .
• trust_anchors can only express large client trust stores (for server certificates), not large server trust stores. Large trust stores rely on the retry mechanism described in , which is not available to client certificates.

The two mechanisms can be deployed together. An authenticating party can have metadata for both mechanisms available, and a relying party can advertise both. [[TODO: remove this or move to supporting documentation after more working group consensus]]

Acknowledgements The authors thank Nick Harper, and Emily Stark for many valuable discussions and insights which led to this document.