This year, we have a new method for Domain Control Validation arriving called DNS-PERSIST-01. It is quite a fundamental change from how we do DCV now, so let's take a look at the benefits and the drawbacks.

First, a quick recap

When you approach a Certificate Authority, like Let's Encrypt, to issue you a certificate, you need to complete DCV. If I go to Let's Encrypt and say "I own scotthelme.co.uk so please issue me a certificate for that domain", Let's Encrypt are required to say "prove that you own scotthelme.co.uk and we will". That is the very essence of DCV, the CA needs to Validate that I do Control the Domain in question. We're not going to delve in to the details, but it will help to have a brief understanding of the existing DCV mechanisms so we can see their shortcomings, and compare those to the potential benefits of the new mechanism.

HTTP-01

In order to demonstrate that I do control the domain, Let's Encrypt will give me a specific path on my website that I will host a challenge response.

http://scotthelme.co.uk/.well-known/acme-challenge/3wQfZp0K4lVbqz6d1Jm2oA

At that location, I will place the response which might look something like this.

3wQfZp0K4lVbqz6d1Jm2oA.P7m1k2Jf8h...b64urlThumbprint...

By challenging me to provide this specific response at this specific URL, I have demonstrated to Let's Encrypt that I have control over that web server, and they can now proceed and issue me a certificate.

The problem with this approach is that it requires the domain to be publicly resolvable, which it might not be, and the system requiring the certificate needs to be capable of hosting web content. Even I have a variety of internal systems that I use certificates on that are not publicly addressable in any way, so I use the next challenge method for them, but HTTP-01 is a great solution if it works for your requirements.

DNS-01

Using the DNS-01 method, Let's Encrypt still need to verify my control of the domain, but the process changes slightly. We're now going to use a DNS TXT record to demonstrate my control, and it will be set on a specific subdomain.

_acme-challenge.scotthelme.co.uk

The format of the challenge response token changes slightly, but the concept remains the same and I will set a DNS record like so:

Name:  _acme-challenge.scotthelme.co.uk
Type:  TXT
Value: "X8d3p0ZJzKQH4cR1N2l6A0M9mJkYwqfZkU5c9bM2EJQ"

Upon completing a DNS resolution and seeing that I have successfully set that record at their request, Let's Encrypt can now issue the certificate as I have demonstrated control over the DNS zone. This is far better for my internal environments, and is the method I use, as all they need to do is hit my DNS providers API to set the record and they can they pull the certificate locally, without having any exposure on the public Internet. The DNS-01 mechanism is also required if you want to issue wildcard certificates, which can't be obtained with HTTP-01.

TLS-ALPN-01

The final mechanism, which is much less common, requires quite a dynamic effort from the host. The CA can connect to the host on port 443, and advertise a special capability in the TLS handshake. The host at scotthelme.co.uk:443 must be able to negotiate that capability, and then generate and provide a certificate with the critically flagged acmeIdentifier extension containing the challenge response token, and the correct names in the SAN.

That's no small task, so I can see why this mechanism is much less common, but it does have different considerations than HTTP-01 or DNS-01 so if it works for you, it is available.

In summary

All 3 of those mechanisms are currently valid for DCV, and in essence they provide the following:

HTTP-01 → prove control of web content
DNS-01 → prove control of DNS zone
TLS-ALPN-01 → prove control of TLS endpoint

Looking to the future

I think the considerations for each of those mechanisms are clear, with both HTTP-01 and DNS-01 being favoured, and TLS-ALPN-01 trailing behind. Being able to serve web content on the public Internet, or having access and control to a DNS zone, are both quite big requirements that require technical consideration. Don't get me wrong, DCV should not be 'easy', especially when you think about the risks involved with DCV not being done properly or not being effective, but I also understand the difficulties where neither of those mechanisms are quite right for a particular environment and that they come with their own considerations, especially at large scale!

Another challenge to consider is the continued drive to reduce the lifetime of certificates. You can see my blog post on how all certificates will be reduced to a maximum of 47 days by 2029, and how Let's Encrypt are already offering 6-day certificates now, which is a great things for security, but it does need considering. A CA can verify your control of a domain and remember that for a period of time, continuing to issue new certificates against that previous demonstration of DCV, but the time periods they can be re-used for is also reducing. Here's a side-by-side comparison of the certificate maximum lifetime, and the DCV re-use periods.

Year	Certificate Lifetime	DCV Re-use Window
Now	398 days	398 days
2026	200 days	200 days
2027	100 days	100 days
2029	47 days	10 days

By 2029, DCV will be coming close to being a real-time endeavour. Now, as ACME requires automation, the shortening of certificate lifetime or the DCV re-use window is not really a concern, you simply run your automated task more frequently, but the more widespread use of certificates does pose a challenge. As we use certificates in more and more places, the overheads of the DCV mechanisms become more problematic in different environments.

DNS-PERSIST-01

This new DCV mechanism is a fundamental change in the approach to how DCV takes place, and does offer some definite advantages, whilst also introducing some concerns that are worth thinking about.

The primary objective here is to set a single, static, DNS record that will allow for continued issuance of new certificates on an ongoing basis for as long as it is present, hence the 'persist' in the name.

Name:  _acme-persist.scotthelme.co.uk
Type:  TXT
Value: "letsencrypt.org; accounturi=https://letsencrypt.org/acme/acct/123456; policy=wildcard"

By setting this new DNS record, I would be allowing Let's Encrypt to issue new certificates using my ACME account specified in the above URL as account ID 123456. Let's Encrypt will still need to conduct DCV by checking this DNS record, but, any of my clients requesting a certificate will not have to answer any kind of dynamic challenge. There is no need to serve a HTTP response, no need to create a new DNS record, and no need to craft a special TLS handshake. The client can simply hit the Let's Encrypt API, use the correct ACME account, and have a new certificate issued. This does allow for a huge reduction in the complexity of having new certificates issued, and I can see many environments where this will be greatly welcomed, but we'll cover a few of my concerns a little later.

Looking at the DNS record itself, we have a couple of configuration options. The policy=wildcard allows the CA and ACME account in question to issue wildcard certificates, it the policy directive is missing, or set to anything other than wildcard, then wildcard certificates will not be allowed. The other configuration value, which I didn't show above, is the persistUntil value.

Name:  _acme-persist.scotthelme.co.uk
Type:  TXT
Value: "letsencrypt.org; accounturi=https://letsencrypt.org/acme/acct/123456; policy=wildcard; persistUntil=1767959300"

This value indicates that this record is valid until Fri Jan 09 2026 11:48:20 GMT+0000, and should not be accepted as valid after that time. This does allow us to set a cap on how long this validation will be accepted for, and addresses one of my concerns. The specification states:

* Domain owners should set expiration dates for validation records
that balance security and operational needs.

My personal approach would be something like having an automated process to refresh this record on a somewhat regular basis, and perhaps push the persistUntil value out by two weeks, updated on a weekly basis. Something about just having a permanent, static record doesn't sit well with me. There are also the concerns around securing the ACME account credentials because any access to those will then allow for issuance of certificates, without any requirement for the person who obtains them to do any 'live' form of DCV.

In short, I can see the value that this mechanism will provide to those that need it, but I can also see it being used far more widely as a purely convenience solution to what was a relatively simple process anyway.

Coming to a CA near you

Let's Encrypt have stated that they will have support for this in 2026, and I imagine it won't take too much longer for other CAs to start supporting this mechanism too. I'm hoping that GTS will also bring in support soon so we can have a pair of reliable CAs to lean on! For now though, just know that if the existing DCV mechanisms are problematic for you, there might be a solution just around the corner.