On 6/12/2013 8:32 AM, Brian Haberman wrote:
Hi Bharat,
On 6/12/13 11:06 AM, Bharat Joshi wrote:
Thanks for your reply.
While reading, I felt that adding a 'to' here make things more clearer.
It does make things clearer, but the original wording is correct.
FWIW, I disagree.
Original:
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.
"to have it be X" != "to have it to be X"
The latter could be misinterpreted as:
to have it become in a state of X
The former means:
to have it in a state of X
However, the original form is something we should avoid in the future
(though I doubt it's worth rewriting).
It would have been preferable to say:
If a host is a member of multiple virtual sites, then
that host must determine which site corresponds to
each packet transmitted or received.
Joe
