Assessment of Redirected and Reassigned Network Locations

1. Purpose

This Technical Note establishes the Bureau’s procedure for assessing network locations historically associated with Digital Objects where the location has redirected, been reassigned, changed function, or remains operational while no longer presenting the documented object.

Network location is an important component of provenance for material originating on the public Internet.

It is not, however, equivalent to identity.

The continued existence of a domain name, hostname or address does not by itself establish the continued existence of the Digital Object historically associated with that location.

Likewise, a change of network location does not by itself establish the loss of the object.

2. Scope

This procedure may be applied where:

• an historical address redirects to another network location;
• a domain remains registered but presents substantially different material;
• an historical hostname no longer resolves;
• a network location has been reassigned to another operator or service;
• the documented object appears to have migrated;
• archival captures indicate earlier content no longer present at the live location; or
• the relationship between an historical address and a currently accessible resource is uncertain.

This procedure concerns the relationship between network location and Digital Object identity.

It does not establish ownership of a domain or determine legal rights associated with a network resource.

3. Network Location as Provenance

A network address may form part of the documentary history of a Digital Object.

For a website, the address may have served as:

• its original point of public access;
• an advertised or canonical location;
• a later operational location;
• a redirecting address;
• an infrastructure endpoint; or
• a temporary or secondary access point.

These relationships should not be treated as interchangeable.

Where available, the Bureau should record both the historical address and the nature of its relationship to the Digital Object.

A change in address should be documented where it materially affects the interpretation or accessibility of the object.

4. Initial Examination

Assessment should begin with the network location recorded in the relevant Digital Object Record or supporting documentation.

The examiner should establish, where practicable:

1. whether the hostname resolves;
2. whether a network service responds;
3. whether the requested resource remains available;
4. whether redirection occurs;
5. the destination of any redirection;
6. whether the responding material is recognizably associated with the documented Digital Object; and
7. whether available historical evidence supports continuity between the recorded and current resource.

The result of a successful network request must not be recorded as successful verification of the Digital Object unless object continuity has also been examined.

5. Redirects

A redirect does not necessarily indicate loss.

Redirects may result from:

• migration between HTTP and HTTPS;
• hostname consolidation;
• changes between www and apex domains;
• restructuring of paths;
• hosting migration;
• replacement of obsolete infrastructure; or
• deliberate relocation of the same Digital Object.

Where the destination remains recognizably continuous with the documented object, the redirect may be recorded as part of the object’s current network configuration.

The historical address should remain part of the provenance record where it has documentary significance.

6. Redirect Chains

Where multiple redirects occur, the final destination should be examined.

The existence of a technically valid redirect chain does not establish historical continuity.

The examiner should consider whether intermediate or final locations indicate:

• ordinary infrastructure migration;
• organisational consolidation;
• transfer to a successor service;
• redirection to a generic homepage;
• domain parking;
• advertising or commercial holding content; or
• an unrelated resource.

A redirect that ultimately terminates at unrelated material should not be treated as current access to the original Digital Object.

7. Reassigned Domains

A domain may continue to operate after the Digital Object historically associated with it has disappeared.

Possible indications of reassignment include:

• substantial change of subject or purpose;
• change of responsible organisation;
• replacement by generic commercial content;
• domain-sale or parking material;
• unrelated services at historically documented paths;
• discontinuity between archival captures and present content; or
• contemporary evidence that the original service ceased operation.

No single indicator is necessarily conclusive.

The Bureau should assess the available evidence collectively.

Where reassignment is established, the historical domain should remain recorded as part of the object’s provenance but should not be represented as a current location of the original object.

8. Replacement at an Existing Location

A network location may remain under the same organisation while the Digital Object itself has been replaced.

This condition should be distinguished from domain reassignment.

For example, an organisation may replace an historical website with a new site at the same address.

The continued relationship between the domain and organisation does not mean that the earlier website remains operational.

Where the historically documented material is no longer substantially represented, the Bureau may determine that the Digital Object has been replaced even though its former network location remains active.

9. Migration and Continuity

A Digital Object may remain operational after migration to another network location.

Assessment of continuity should consider, where relevant:

• title and identity;
• responsible creator or organisation;
• content;
• navigational structure;
• function;
• visual characteristics;
• documented migration notices;
• redirect behaviour;
• technical continuity; and
• contemporary or archival evidence of relocation.

No individual characteristic is required to remain unchanged in every case.

The question is whether the available evidence supports the interpretation that the current resource represents a continuation of the documented Digital Object rather than a distinct successor or unrelated resource.

10. Unavailable Locations

Failure to resolve or connect to an historical address does not by itself establish permanent loss.

Inaccessibility may result from:

• temporary service interruption;
• DNS failure;
• expired registration;
• network filtering;
• server failure;
• configuration error; or
• deliberate withdrawal.

The examiner should avoid converting a single failed observation into a final historical determination.

Where continued accessibility cannot be established, the object may be recorded as unavailable pending further examination.

Repeated observations and additional documentary evidence may support later reclassification.

11. Archival Evidence

Archival captures may assist in establishing the earlier relationship between a Digital Object and a network location.

Where available, captures may provide evidence of:

• historical content;
• titles and branding;
• internal paths;
• redirects;
• dates of observed availability; and
• changes in the resource over time.

An archival capture does not establish that the object remained continuously available between capture dates.

Absence from an archive does not establish that the resource did not exist.

Archive coverage, capture success and technical limitations should therefore be considered when interpreting gaps in the surviving record.

12. Contemporary Documentary Evidence

Contemporary sources may assist in establishing the identity and historical location of a Digital Object.

Relevant evidence may include:

• announcements;
• directories;
• printed publications;
• contemporary hyperlinks;
• technical documentation;
• advertisements;
• software documentation; and
• other records identifying the historical address.

Such evidence may be particularly important where the original resource is no longer available for direct examination.

Source material should be treated in accordance with PM-000002 — Citation and Source Attribution Standard.

13. Assessment Outcomes

Following examination, the relationship between the recorded network location and the Digital Object may be described using an appropriate determination.

Possible findings include:

Continuous — the location continues to provide access to the documented Digital Object or redirects to a resource reasonably assessed as its continuation.

Migrated — the Digital Object remains accessible but its principal network location has changed.

Unavailable — access could not be established and the available evidence does not yet support a more specific determination.

Replaced — the network location remains active but no longer presents the catalogued Digital Object.

Reassigned — the historical network location is now associated with an unrelated operator, purpose or resource.

Removed — available evidence indicates that the documented resource has been deliberately withdrawn or deleted.

Unresolved — surviving evidence is insufficient or contradictory and no more specific determination can presently be supported.

These findings describe the observed relationship between an object and its network location. They should not automatically be treated as complete preservation assessments.

14. Catalogue Treatment

Historical addresses should not be removed from Bureau records merely because they no longer provide access to the Digital Object.

Where appropriate, the Digital Object Record should distinguish:

• historical address;
• current address;
• last verification date;
• operational status;
• preservation status; and
• relevant explanatory or provenance information.

A currently responding historical address should not be presented as an active object location where examination establishes that the original Digital Object has been replaced or the location reassigned.

The catalogue should preserve historical continuity without creating false present-day continuity.

15. Referral for Further Examination

A case should be referred for further examination where:

• object identity cannot be established;
• surviving sources conflict materially;
• reassignment is suspected but not sufficiently documented;
• archival evidence indicates substantial historical material not represented by the current resource;
• a reconstruction or mirror may be mistaken for the original object; or
• the significance of the change warrants a formal Field Report.

Referral may be made to the appropriate preservation, recovery, provenance or forensic unit according to the nature of the case.

The absence of an immediate determination should not prevent preservation of the available evidence.

16. Relationship to Existing Procedure

This Technical Note supplements TN-000001 — Verification of Publicly Accessible Legacy Websites.

TN-000001 establishes the general procedure for determining whether an active legacy website remains publicly accessible and sufficiently representative of the Digital Object recorded by the Bureau.

This note provides additional procedure for cases in which network location itself has become ambiguous through redirection, migration, reassignment or replacement.

Together, the procedures are intended to prevent network response from being mistaken for object continuity.

---

Prepared by Margaret D. Bartel
Chief Records Officer
Records & Provenance Division
Bureau of Digital Antiquities
1 October 2026