I must say the idea to define a custom non compatible naming scheme that hinders the communication with non ROS2 DDS nodes shocks me a little bit. What is the point of using a standard communication system if you do not intend to use it in a standard way?
Wasn’t the broader idea behind using a proven standardized communication protocol to make ROS2 more compatible and wider accepted? To me the whole idea of designing a middleware agnostic system seem not to be really smart - it creates incompatibilities and does not allow to really embrace the underlying system nor to use its specific features. It would be like using TCP/IP but not letting details like IP addresses and DNS appear at the surface but instead do all kinds of name-mangling and concept translations.
The ROS2 design team should be aware of the rise of IoT. I personally would suggest to design ROS2 as compatible as possible. Otherwise I see the danger for ROS to be superseded by successful IoT systems that can be used for the robotic use-case as well…