This is not necessary. The original is correct grammar. "be" is being used in the subjunctive form.
A more modern alternative might be "If a particular host is desired to be in multiple virtual sites,", but the original is correct, so why bother? -- Jakob Heitz. On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:58 AM, "RFC Errata System" <[email protected]> wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4364, > "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4364&eid=3647 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Bharat Joshi <[email protected]> > > Section: 3.2 > > Original Text > ------------- > If it is desired to have a particular host be in multiple virtual sites, then > that host must determine, for each packet, which virtual site the packet is > associated with. > > > Corrected Text > -------------- > If it is desired to have a particular host to be in multiple virtual sites, > then that host must determine, for each packet, which virtual site the packet > is associated with. > > Notes > ----- > 'host be' should be 'host to be' > > Instructions: > ------------- > This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC4364 (draft-ietf-l3vpn-rfc2547bis-03) > -------------------------------------- > Title : BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) > Publication Date : February 2006 > Author(s) : E. Rosen, Y. Rekhter > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks INT > Area : Internet > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG
