Names and naming can be a very slippery business. (see "The Naming of
Cats" by T. S. Eliot)
In the world of Business, ANSI X12 folks took the view that it was not
appropriate to try to name trading partners, there were a large number
of groups that already were in the business of naming companies and
other entities throughout the world. In most cases the exact naming
authorities actually used some number scheme. Now in all of these
cases, the naming authority itself took certain care to establish the
identity of the entity so named. But also it is true that the entity
named DID NOT OWN THEIR OWN NAME. As an example, businesses all are
found to have Dun & Bradstreet ID numbers. For businesses this number
has the cachet of D&B who actually goes out on site to see what the
business looks like and write up a report that anyone can obtain (for a
fee). Of course, businesses change and the date of the report should be
reviewed as well as the contents. This is a typical way for two
businesses that do not have a prior record to establish a trading
relationship.
We can say that my parents were an established naming authority by the
rights granted by the state where I was born. A birth certificate was
issued by the state, notarized by the attending physician. By this name
I own certain rights that I have been granted by the US congress and the
various state statutes.
X.509 establishes names for the purposes of finding an individual in a
directory system. This is a useful function for a directory, but, as we
have seen, has limited value for a unique naming system. (Which it
never intended to be.)
I propose that a far simpler approach be used, that of the X12 design
which is a two layer name consisting of <Naming_Authority><Name>. Now
it is true that for this to work, there must be a register of
<Naming_Authority> which for ANSI X12 is DISA. This could mean that a
third layer <Country> might, or might not, be required.
In any case names would look like:
Internet peace at acm.org
Dun&Bradstreet 10002356765-01
US Government EIN or SSN
and so on. Each naming authority would have its own, explicit or
implicit, policy statement for establish names, and communicating
partners would pick names to use based on the context of the
communications; selecting different names for each context.
The idea that seems to be failing is that some new organization (ITU)
can create a new naming scheme out of whole cloth and impose it on the
entire world by fiat. This just does not work. The X12 approach has
proven that it can work.
Peace ..Tom