Interpret Link relation types without dereferencing every target

Use this document to connect an official requirement or behavior to observable evidence: Interpret Link relation types without dereferencing every target. Only the official source and traced locations below supply facts. Confirm applicability before acting.

Source fact:

The official RFC 8288 — Web Linking from RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force supports the following bounded statements:

• A Web link consists of a context IRI, relation type, target IRI, and optional target attributes; serialized link ordering carries no inherent significance. The research record locates this support at Section 2 (Links).
• Registered relation names are case-insensitive tokens and cannot constrain context or target representation media types. The research record locates this support at Section 2.1.1 (Registered Relation Types).
• An extension relation uses a URI as its identifier, but a client should not automatically dereference that URI merely to learn the relation’s definition. The research record locates this support at Section 2.1.2 (Extension Relation Types).

Only the traced statements above are asserted as source facts. Apply the review to clients, origin services, intermediaries, caches, proxies, gateways, protocol versions, and security-policy enforcement points after confirming that the source and deployed context match.

What the source does not establish

This RFC evidence supports only the named web or transport decision; it does not prove browser, intermediary, library, or service compatibility. It does not establish a deployment’s current state, authorize a production change, prove compliance, or show that DNS, certificates, identity providers, time, content delivery, network paths, and application ownership are healthy. Documented options are review inputs, not universal mandates.

Applicability questions

• For source statement 1 at Section 2 (Links), which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?
• For source statement 2 at Section 2.1.1 (Registered Relation Types), which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?
• For source statement 3 at Section 2.1.2 (Extension Relation Types), which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?
• What inventory proves which parts of clients, origin services, intermediaries, caches, proxies, gateways, protocol versions, and security-policy enforcement points are in and out of scope?
• Which condition in DNS, certificates, identity providers, time, content delivery, network paths, and application ownership must be healthy before evidence is trustworthy?
• What result would disprove the working assumption and return the issue to the owner?

DSE recommendation:

DSE recommends using the cited source as the evidence anchor for this decision. Begin by recording scope and current state before deciding whether a change is warranted. Record the source location, examined part of clients, origin services, intermediaries, caches, proxies, gateways, protocol versions, and security-policy enforcement points, observed and expected states, owner, and reason for deviation.

An implementation decision needs an owner, approved window, prechecks, observable outcome, stop authority, and rollback path. Validate DNS, certificates, identity providers, time, content delivery, network paths, and application ownership before and after the test, and store only sanitized operational evidence.

Verification and evidence

Keep the source locations Section 2 (Links); Section 2.1.1 (Registered Relation Types); Section 2.1.2 (Extension Relation Types) adjacent to the sanitized artifacts used for comparison. Prefer request and response captures, negotiated protocol details, headers, cache behavior, certificate state, and server or proxy logs, with enough identity and timing data for an independent recheck.

Keep before-state evidence, approval, test or change result, exceptions, and after-state evidence together. Use an approved lab, window, or nonproduction path for risky tests. Set a recheck trigger for version, architecture, dependency, vendor, incident, or ownership change. A check proves only what was observed.

Official references

• RFC 8288 — Web Linking — RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force