>> [string names, with a mapping function]
> No, this is a fine solution, and there is a way to deal with the clash.

> Here is a quote from draft-ietf-secsh-architecture-08.txt:

> o  Names that do not contain an at-sign (@) are reserved to be
>    assigned by [authority].
> o  Anyone can define additional [...] names in the format
>    name@domainname, [...].  The part following the at-sign MUST be a
>    valid fully qualified internet domain name [RFC-1034] controlled
>    by the person or organization defining the name.

Which is fine until a domain changes hands.  (If this is due to
something like a corporate takeover, it's not a problem.  But if the
original holder lets it lapse and some innocent bystander picks it up
later, it may be.)

Still, it's probably as good as you're going to get.

					der Mouse

			       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
		     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B