Update patch set 2

Patch Set 2:

(3 comments)

A couple initial comments, more to come.

Patch-set: 2
Label: Verified=0

025660be3181861dba24e33e5d81acd3a55779f5

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+{
+  "comments": [
+    {
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "7ffa3b31_43ce6d2d",
+        "filename": "specs/newton/address-scope-subnet-pool-mapping.rst",
+        "patchSetId": 2
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 38,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 1689
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2017-04-20T18:07:53Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "If we are going to accept both these values, I think we should normalize them to one or the other. Using 10 (4+6) would avoid this issue.",
+      "range": {
+        "startLine": 38,
+        "startChar": 23,
+        "endLine": 38,
+        "endChar": 31
+      },
+      "revId": "025660be3181861dba24e33e5d81acd3a55779f5",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
+      "unresolved": false
+    },
+    {
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "7ffa3b31_9e4e0e36",
+        "filename": "specs/newton/address-scope-subnet-pool-mapping.rst",
+        "patchSetId": 2
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 71,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 1689
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2017-04-20T18:07:53Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "\"multiple l3_policies\" would be clearer here.",
+      "range": {
+        "startLine": 71,
+        "startChar": 30,
+        "endLine": 71,
+        "endChar": 42
+      },
+      "revId": "025660be3181861dba24e33e5d81acd3a55779f5",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
+      "unresolved": false
+    },
+    {
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "7ffa3b31_9ec3ae57",
+        "filename": "specs/newton/address-scope-subnet-pool-mapping.rst",
+        "patchSetId": 2
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 73,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 1689
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2017-04-20T18:07:53Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "I think there is a distinction needed between \"routability\", as defined above, and \"connectivity\". Maybe we should instead say that \"Even though sharing a common address scope implies routability across l3_policies, actual connectivity between l3_policies is not implied because each l3_policy maps to a distinct router. In GBP, connectivity between l3_policies remains subject to a PTG providing a PRS that is consumed by an external_policy.\n\nAlso note that there has been some recent discussion about whether the above suggested statement is true, or if instead connectivity between l3_policies that share a common address scope should be subject to PTGs in each l3_policy directly providing and consuming the same PRS. I am working on a document discussing these alternatives.",
+      "range": {
+        "startLine": 72,
+        "startChar": 36,
+        "endLine": 73,
+        "endChar": 14
+      },
+      "revId": "025660be3181861dba24e33e5d81acd3a55779f5",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
+      "unresolved": false
+    }
+  ]
+}