The following errata report has been verified for RFC9954,
"Hybrid Key Exchange in TLS 1.3"
--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://errata.rfc-editor.org/eid9136/
--------------------------------------
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Nikolai Malykh <[email protected]>
Date Reported: Aug. 17, 2026, 8:57 a.m.
Verified by: Madison Church (RFC Production Center)
Section 3.2 says:
Original Text
-------------
Recall that, in TLS 1.3 ([TLS13], Section 4.2.8), a KEM public key or
KEM ciphertext is represented as a KeyShareEntry:
struct {
NamedGroup group;
opaque key_exchange<1..2^16-1>;
} KeyShareEntry;
These are transmitted in the extension_data fields of
KeyShareClientHello and KeyShareServerHello extensions:
struct {
KeyShareEntry client_shares<0..2^16-1>;
} KeyShareClientHello;
struct {
KeyShareEntry server_share;
} KeyShareServerHello;
The client's shares are listed in descending order of client
preference; the server selects one algorithm and sends its
corresponding share.
For a hybrid key exchange, the key_exchange field of a KeyShareEntry
is the concatenation of the key_exchange field for each of the
constituent algorithms. The order of shares in the concatenation
MUST be the same as the order of algorithms indicated in the
definition of the NamedGroup.
For the client's share, the key_exchange value contains the
concatenation of the pk outputs of the corresponding KEMs' KeyGen
algorithms if that algorithm corresponds to a KEM or the (EC)DH
ephemeral key share if that algorithm corresponds to an (EC)DH group.
For the server's share, the key_exchange value contains the
concatenation of the ct outputs of the corresponding KEMs' Encaps
algorithms if that algorithm corresponds to a KEM or the (EC)DH
ephemeral key share if that algorithm corresponds to an (EC)DH group.
Section 4.2.8 of [TLS13] requires that "The key_exchange values for
each KeyShareEntry MUST be generated independently." In the context
of this document, the same algorithm may appear in multiple named
groups; thus, this document relaxes the above requirement to allow
the same key_exchange value for the same algorithm to be reused in
multiple KeyShareEntry records sent within the same ClientHello.
However, key_exchange values for different algorithms MUST be
generated independently. Explicitly, if the NamedGroup is the hybrid
key exchange MyECDHMyPQKEM, the KeyShareEntry.key_exchange values
MUST be generated in one of the following two ways:
Corrected Text
--------------
Recall that, in TLS 1.3 ([TLS13], Section 4.3.8), a KEM public key or
KEM ciphertext is represented as a KeyShareEntry:
struct {
NamedGroup group;
opaque key_exchange<1..2^16-1>;
} KeyShareEntry;
These are transmitted in the extension_data fields of
KeyShareClientHello and KeyShareServerHello extensions:
struct {
KeyShareEntry client_shares<0..2^16-1>;
} KeyShareClientHello;
struct {
KeyShareEntry server_share;
} KeyShareServerHello;
The client's shares are listed in descending order of client
preference; the server selects one algorithm and sends its
corresponding share.
For a hybrid key exchange, the key_exchange field of a KeyShareEntry
is the concatenation of the key_exchange field for each of the
constituent algorithms. The order of shares in the concatenation
MUST be the same as the order of algorithms indicated in the
definition of the NamedGroup.
For the client's share, the key_exchange value contains the
concatenation of the pk outputs of the corresponding KEMs' KeyGen
algorithms if that algorithm corresponds to a KEM or the (EC)DH
ephemeral key share if that algorithm corresponds to an (EC)DH group.
For the server's share, the key_exchange value contains the
concatenation of the ct outputs of the corresponding KEMs' Encaps
algorithms if that algorithm corresponds to a KEM or the (EC)DH
ephemeral key share if that algorithm corresponds to an (EC)DH group.
Section 4.3.8 of [TLS13] requires that "The key_exchange values for
each KeyShareEntry MUST be generated independently." In the context
of this document, the same algorithm may appear in multiple named
groups; thus, this document relaxes the above requirement to allow
the same key_exchange value for the same algorithm to be reused in
multiple KeyShareEntry records sent within the same ClientHello.
However, key_exchange values for different algorithms MUST be
generated independently. Explicitly, if the NamedGroup is the hybrid
key exchange MyECDHMyPQKEM, the KeyShareEntry.key_exchange values
MUST be generated in one of the following two ways:
Notes
-----
There is a typo in the section number - 4.2.8 instead of 4.3.8
--------------------------------------
RFC9954 (draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design)
--------------------------------------
Title : Hybrid Key Exchange in TLS 1.3
Publication Date : July 2026
Author(s) : D. Stebila, S. Fluhrer, S. Gueron
Category : Informational
Source : tls (sec)
Stream : IETF
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.