A Global Address for Global Business

by Chris P. Ramsey, SITA

The word "interesting" is one of those useful little euphemisms that litters polite speech. It means anything from dull ("that was an interesting presentation") to violently unstable ("may you live in interesting times!"). The X.400 world and the whole of Information Technology has certainly been interesting.

One contributing factor has been the enormous changes in the X.400 marketplace since the rules of the game were first drawn up in 1984. The years since then have seen a proliferation of new products, new architectures, new access methods, new regulatory climates, new standards, new ADMDs and indeed new countries.

SITA is an international VAN providing ADMD service. Established in 1949 as a co-operative (not-for-profit organization) to provide services to the airline community, SITA has expanded into a group of companies serving not just the airline and travel-related sectors but a wide range of multinational companies.

Our focus on the airline industry has meant that SITA has had to have a world-wide presence. Thus we maintain a network covering 214 countries and territories around the world. The size and nature of our clients' needs introduce a series of interesting questions.

For example, an important component of the X.400 address is the country code. This is interesting in that SITA is strictly a stateless organization. The cooperative, while registered in Belgium, maintains major offices in ten countries throughout the world. With this multi-national base, the issue of which country code to use becomes problematic.

For example, to pick just one country and register there clearly wouldn't work. Which country should SITA choose? Belgium? France? the UK? the USA? Singapore? Why prefer one of these over the others? And how would the airlines feel about it? Especially airlines from "obvious choice" countries not actually chosen. Finally, why should a company operating on the Pacific Rim have to have an address in Europe, or vice versa. This last point applies equally to non-airline multi-national companies, of course.

The other obvious possibility, to register in every country and operate over 200 country codes, is also fraught with perils. Over 200 different national registration bodies to deal with, each with their own way of doing things. Over 200 real or virtual MTAs to configure and manage. Over 200--well, you get the picture. In the meantime, there are messages to be sent.

So SITA opted for a radical approach. If SITA couldn't do business the way it was currently being done, why not change the way things are done? If SITA couldn't use any (or all) of the existing Country Codes--why not cut the Gordian knot by devising an addition to the schema. Hence the decision to use the non-country code WW, meaning "World Wide": "a global address for global business."

Actually, it's not such a radical move as it might at first appear. There have long been mutterings in the X.400 community about the over-complex nature of the traditional X.400 address, especially when compared to the much simpler Internet addressing. And there is a developing, if as yet unarticulated, consensus among trans-national ADMD providers and their multi-national customers that the "Country Code" framework is restrictive of their global ambitions.

While not everyone has plans to use the WW code, most are sympathetic to the logic and the practical conclusions SITA has drawn. The real proof of this assertion is the progress that has been made in negotiating X.400 interconnections between SITAMAIL and global players like MCI, BT, IBM and AT&T. The first interconnection between SITAMAIL and another global ADMD MCI, was recently announced. More are expected to follow shortly.

Of course, pioneering always throws up fresh challenges. There are some, a very few, old gateways that have problems recognizing a country code that didn't exist when they were built. And the relevant standards bodies have not as yet managed to adequately address the problem of global, rather than purely national ADMD or PRMD registration.

The appropriate ITU-T (ex-CCITT) document, Recommendation F.401, refers to ISO 3166, the list of internationally accepted two-letter country codes. But, as reported in EEMA Briefing (October 1994), the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency declared "the coding of names of groups of countries does not lie within the scope of ISO 3166."

Nevertheless, the need for regional and global codes is clearly there. Customers have reacted favorably to our approach, and SITA will be pressing for the acceptance, de facto if not de jure, of the WW code. And we are confident that with the tacit support of a growing number of the major players WW will be accepted, and will be a step forward on the road to a truly global messaging infrastructure.