Update patch set 2

Patch Set 2:

(3 comments)

Patch-set: 2
Label: Verified=0

025660be3181861dba24e33e5d81acd3a55779f5

@@ -447,6 +447,30 @@
       "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
       "unresolved": false
     },
+    {
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "5ff73747_0270d1a4",
+        "filename": "specs/newton/address-scope-subnet-pool-mapping.rst",
+        "patchSetId": 2
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 78,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 490
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2017-04-25T10:16:10Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "Agree with option 3 (in fact when multiple subnetpools are explicitly associated, the ip_pool is already being represented as a comma separated list).",
+      "parentUuid": "5ff73747_b6f85ac4",
+      "range": {
+        "startLine": 78,
+        "startChar": 34,
+        "endLine": 78,
+        "endChar": 41
+      },
+      "revId": "025660be3181861dba24e33e5d81acd3a55779f5",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
+      "unresolved": false
+    },
     {
       "key": {
         "uuid": "7ffa3b31_4f144b44",
@@ -1642,6 +1666,24 @@
       "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
       "unresolved": false
     },
+    {
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "5ff73747_e2b605da",
+        "filename": "specs/newton/address-scope-subnet-pool-mapping.rst",
+        "patchSetId": 2
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 151,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 490
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2017-04-25T10:16:10Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "With regards to Bob\u0027s proposal to use the L3P\u0027s subnet_prefix_length is fine, but the earlier choice to use the subnetpool\u0027s default_prefix_len was made with the intention of defining a semantic that if a subnetpool is explicitly provided, its attributes override those of the L3P (where relevant). This was considered easier for the user to deal with as opposed to having to remember that certain attributes of the L3P override those of the subnetpool. I am not stuck with this line of thinking and happy to support any option that makes more sense now.\n\nWith regards to Anna\u0027s question, I don\u0027t think we should deprecate ip_pool as it offers the GBP user the option to specify a supernet, and not have to deal with subnetpool resources.",
+      "parentUuid": "5ff73747_749f6550",
+      "revId": "025660be3181861dba24e33e5d81acd3a55779f5",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
+      "unresolved": false
+    },
     {
       "key": {
         "uuid": "7ffa3b31_4fd1eb22",
@@ -1856,6 +1898,30 @@
       "revId": "025660be3181861dba24e33e5d81acd3a55779f5",
       "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
       "unresolved": false
+    },
+    {
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "5ff73747_a23b5d36",
+        "filename": "specs/newton/address-scope-subnet-pool-mapping.rst",
+        "patchSetId": 2
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 241,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 490
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2017-04-25T10:16:10Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "I think Thomas\u0027 initial suggestion to use 46, 64 to represent dual-stack is more intuitive. And since we dont have enough options already, I will throw in one more, use the integer \u00272\u0027 to represent dual-stack? ;-)",
+      "parentUuid": "5ff73747_f9edae25",
+      "range": {
+        "startLine": 241,
+        "startChar": 52,
+        "endLine": 241,
+        "endChar": 64
+      },
+      "revId": "025660be3181861dba24e33e5d81acd3a55779f5",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
+      "unresolved": false
     }
   ]
 }