Make cfdot actual-lrps consistent

[MarcPaquette]

What is this change about?

cfdot is not reporting empty host_tls_proxy_port when C2c is utilized

1. Deploy an app on CF with c2c networking enabled
2. ssh into the diego cell that the app is running on
3. Run cfdot actual-lrps

In the port section, each array entry should have 4 attributes. If there's no correpsonding port, it should list 0 as the port.

 "ports": [
    {
      "container_port": 8080,
      "host_port": 61004,
      "container_tls_proxy_port": 61001,
      "host_tls_proxy_port": 61006
    },
    {
      "container_port": 8080,
      "host_port": 61004,
      "container_tls_proxy_port": 61443,
      "host_tls_proxy_port": 0
    },
    {
      "container_port": 2222,
      "host_port": 61005,
      "container_tls_proxy_port": 61002,
      "host_tls_proxy_port": 61007
    }
  ],

For the C2CTLS port (61443), there is no entry for host_tls_proxy_port. This should be set to 0 in all cases (regardless of whether the values of the containers.proxy.enable_unproxied_port_mappings and containers.proxy.require_and_verify_client_certificates properties are set)

{
  "process_guid": "4a295375-84d5-4017-8e14-97cc08fef7e6-f257d4b3-e810-4ad9-bfbe-f493dcddddb0",
  "index": 0,
  "domain": "cf-apps",
  "instance_guid": "6f042458-693c-456a-6fa6-ed96",
  "cell_id": "e0c33815-b521-4e83-bc43-a8fb41d29ea7",
  "address": "10.0.1.14",
  "ports": [
    {
      "container_port": 8080,
      "host_port": 61000,
      "container_tls_proxy_port": 61001,
      "host_tls_proxy_port": 61002
    },
    {
      "container_port": 8080,
      "host_port": 61000,
      "container_tls_proxy_port": 61443
    },
    {
      "container_port": 2222,
      "host_port": 61001,
      "container_tls_proxy_port": 61002,
      "host_tls_proxy_port": 61003
    }
  ],

What problem it is trying to solve?

This change will report host_tls_proxy_port when it is empty as well as populated

How should this change be described in diego-release release notes?

The bbs now correctly reports empty port assignments when using C2C networking

Please provide any contextual information.

Tracker story for private repo183842469

[notrepo05]

I'm not an expert on this, but the removal of omitempty does seem to satisfy the requirements

[dsabeti]

LGTM