On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Glen Zorn wrote: > On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 21:21 -0700, C. M. Heard wrote: > > ... > > > > > In Section 6.1: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Datagram de-duplication can be accomplished using hash-based > > > >> duplicate detection for cases where the ID field is absent. > > > >> > > > > > > > > Under what circumstances would the ID field be absent? > > > > > > Replace "absent" with "known not unique". > > > > Better, I think, would be "not known to be unique". > > Except that the two are not semantically equivalent.
Indeed. That was why I suggested the change. //cmh
