Your assumption that no regulatory liability applies to networks only proves my point that you do not understand the current situation in network engineering.
Why is it important for anyone to call themselves “engineer”. Why cant the structure be three parts
[licensed / certified ] Licensed by the state or certified by the vendor
[discipline] civil / electrical / network / etc
[level] technician / engineer / architect / consultant
Sorry, Computer and Networking are offshoots of mathematics not electrical engineering. I have fired EE’s because they could not perform the job required. One even had his masters in EE.
Unfortunately you do seem to possess the intelligence to understand complex systems. Do you want a civil engineer to review the desins of a 757? How about a home architect reviewing the designs of a nuclear power plant? I would venture to say that most complex systems can not be reasonably reviewed by a mid level skill set.
Not only have I worked for several of the network vendors and in one case, engineered their own internal voice video and data backbone, I have served on design teams, technology teams and even have been the highest level of support for customers. This includes PSTN carriers and their central offices and backbones.
However, I no longer perform in that role.
I understand networks quite well. Regulatory liability varies or is non-existent on the network, irrespective of the individual network designer. You added that as a red herring though.
Computer and Network Engineering - in academia almost universally branched off of Electrical Engineering. Many electrical engineering departments are titled “Electrical and Computer Engineering”. Computer Science often was an offshoot of the Math Department in many institutions.
Licensing is not ever likely to be put into a vendors hands - afterall I’m sure you know your share of folks who collect vendor letters after their name, but couldn’t design themselves an escape hatch from a paper back.
The reason licensing resides at the state level is for local accountability and public safety - if you screw up the state can yank your right to do business as that licensed professional (whatever it is.....there are literally hundreds of categories in some states) Their oversight is part of state law in every state I’m aware of.
My problem with this is the difficulty of working as a licensed professional engineer in multiple states - it shouldn’t be such a pain, but it is, that’s life.
Now as to your scenario of an engineer reviewing designs for which they obviously are not qualified - is nonsense. In some states they license you by discipline, in EVERY state that uses model engineering law, you are forbidden from reviewing designs for which you have no expertise. No competent engineer would do it. It happens on occasion and is often disciplined by engineering boards.
For complex systems a competent engineer exercising responsible charge over your work would insist that you document and/or explain the approach you used, and why you picked it over another, and specifically detail which are critical and why. You might detail software and testing.
Then the engineer would represent the design in whatever manner was necessary - where there was uncertainty, it would be documented and presented to the customer with detailed explanation as to why it could not be guaranteed.
Talented technical staff from entry to PhD levels are not degraded in any way by the lack of an external “engineer” title - they just can’t offer to “engineer” anything outside of the company environment for the public.
Many networks require no or very little permitting or other regulation (outside of, perhaps, robust, redundant power systems). It is your project portfolio that matters most, and capability to execute by virtue of knowledge and/or experience. Many professors of engineering teach engineers that later become professional engineers in responsible charge of projects that their own professors could not legally perform.
It never hurts to professionalize - a PE credential doesn’t guarantee anything, but it does provide a measure, with a corrective administrative apparatus operating for the public good (we hope) as a oversight.
A vendor certification is meaningless in this context. Variance in competence is far greater in my experience (and I’ve hired many) with vendor certs. It is meaningless as an ability to function in an intended role. A PE doesn’t guarantee competence, but there is an enforcement element that is missing with vendor certs.