Update patch set 2

Patch Set 2:

(2 comments)

Patch-set: 2

025660be3181861dba24e33e5d81acd3a55779f5

@@ -1606,6 +1606,24 @@
       "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
       "unresolved": false
     },
+    {
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "5ff73747_be4a6c7d",
+        "filename": "specs/newton/address-scope-subnet-pool-mapping.rst",
+        "patchSetId": 2
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 151,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 1689
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2017-04-24T21:06:10Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "Good question, Anna. Subnetpools did not exist when the GBP API was first developed, so we needed an attribute to specify the address space an L3P should use. With subnetpools, we still need some way to specify the address space if the L3P is going to create its own subnetpool when the user does not pass them in explicitly.",
+      "parentUuid": "5ff73747_5e4a4855",
+      "revId": "025660be3181861dba24e33e5d81acd3a55779f5",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
+      "unresolved": false
+    },
     {
       "key": {
         "uuid": "7ffa3b31_4fd1eb22",
@@ -1796,6 +1814,30 @@
       "revId": "025660be3181861dba24e33e5d81acd3a55779f5",
       "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
       "unresolved": false
+    },
+    {
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "5ff73747_f9edae25",
+        "filename": "specs/newton/address-scope-subnet-pool-mapping.rst",
+        "patchSetId": 2
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 241,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 1689
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2017-04-24T21:06:10Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "If we define some canonic ip_version value (i.e. 10, 46, or 64) representing dual-stack, we can populate it based on enable_v4 and enable_v6. I\u0027m not sure we can just not return a value for ip_version.\n\nAlso, if no value for ip_version is passed in when creating an L3P, the API is going to default it to 4. This might conflict with values passed in for enable_v4 and enable_v6. Maybe we could eliminate the default value, but we need to remain compatible with existing code that uses the default or passes in an ip_version value. It seems cleaner to me to just decide on an ip_version value representing dual-stack.",
+      "parentUuid": "5ff73747_43da7117",
+      "range": {
+        "startLine": 241,
+        "startChar": 52,
+        "endLine": 241,
+        "endChar": 64
+      },
+      "revId": "025660be3181861dba24e33e5d81acd3a55779f5",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
+      "unresolved": false
     }
   ]
 }