I think this is a good document covering not only the use cases but also context and network impacts of so-called RCM. I would ballot yes but there are a lot of nits which need to be cleaned.

Sec. 1
Internet-of-thing -> Internet of Things
"monitor" the WLAN packers -> "monitor" the WLAN packets

Sec. 2 
shared service device which functions -> shared network device whose functions 
BTW there are more of this type of nits, they were listed in the artart  review by Marco Tiloca

Sec. 3
3.1 p.7 
... connect to other mediums ... 
like what?
3.2 p.8
physical device and it associated -> physical device and its associated

Sec. 4 p.10 last sentence 
That temporal identity may or not be the same for -> That temporal identity may or may not be the same for

Sec. 5

Sec. 6.1 p.13
ARP, inverse ARP [RFC826], Neighbor Solicitation and, -> ARP, Reverse ARP [RFC826], Neighbor Solicitation and,

It is mentioned that IoT-related functionalities (door unlock, preferred light
   and temperature configuration, etc.) the use of RCM blocks such services.
I leave it up to the authors to decide to get into this issue more deeply. IoT devices use IEEE 802.15 (802.15.1 for BLE, 802.15.4 for Zigbee, etc.) It seems like BLE 4.0+ devices do have RCM type of capability and it is used because random MAC addresses do not require registration with IEEE. 
(BTW I suggest mentioning this fact in the document.)

In BLE 4.0+ devices, some random addresses are resolvable by key sharing, they are called resolvable random private addresses. 

Sec. 6.2 p.15 Table 1
I think Home Network is almost Full trust especially with the almost universal use of 802.11i WPA2/WPA3

Appendix A

The text here (esp. A.1 and A.2) belong to the main text in some sections. They could easily be incorporated there.