Subject: [6lo] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-backbone-router-16: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:58:30 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6lo-backbone-router-16: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-backbone-router/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm curious if what is specified in this document affects any of the
considerations discussed in RFC 8505 Section 8 about how addresses should be
formed. RFC 8505 discourages the use of EUI-64 to form IIDs, while this spec
seems to incentivize or at least make possible use cases where the 6LBR has to
store MAC addresses in order to serve as a mapping server. Should this document
discuss the privacy considerations associated with Bridging Proxy mode?