Comment 8 for bug 1526382

@Nisha. I don't see anything in that irc discussion you pasted in comment #7 that indicates that you should have removed the needs-spec tag.

Also, as jroll mentions in that same irc discussion "to be approved without a spec, the RFE would need more details on the changes".

I am not that familiar with the state of ilo in ironic. How is oob inspection done currently with ilo, how will in-band inspection be done with ilo (how will the user choose whether to do oob or in-band)? w/o knowing those two, I don't know if your proposed oob_inspection_only config is a good choice. What group/section of the config file were you proposing to add that config? Why obb first, then inband second? Why not inband first, then oob second?

Given the questions I have above, I am still inclined to leave the needs-spec tag unless you can clearly describe in this rfe, the scope of work, etc.

Lastly, w/o the inband inspection spec being approved, it seems premature to be spending time on this spec. If the inband inspection spec changes, that would affect this spec.