[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: (draft-camarillo-sip-rfc3312-update) 00 01 02 03 RFC 4032

SIP Working Group                                           G. Camarillo
Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
Expires: March 30, 2005                                       P. Kyzivat
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                      September 29, 2004


     Update to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Preconditions
                               Framework
                  draft-ietf-sip-rfc3312-update-03.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
   of section 3 of RFC 3667.  By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
   author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
   which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
   which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as
   Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 30, 2005.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).

Abstract

   This document updates the framework for preconditions in SIP.  We
   provide guidelines for authors of new precondition types and describe
   how to use SIP preconditions in situations that involve session
   mobility.




Camarillo & Kyzivat      Expires March 30, 2005                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       Preconditions Framework Update       September 2004


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Defining New Precondition Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     3.1   Precondition Type Tag  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     3.2   Status Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.3   Precondition Strength  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.4   Suspending and Resuming Session Establishment  . . . . . .  4
   4.  Issues Related to Session Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.1   Update to RFC 3312 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.2   Desired Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   7.  Acknowledges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   8.1   Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   8.2   Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 10































Camarillo & Kyzivat      Expires March 30, 2005                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft       Preconditions Framework Update       September 2004


1.  Introduction

   RFC 3312 [3] defines the framework for SIP [2] preconditions, which
   is a generic framework that allows SIP UAs (User Agents) to suspend
   the establishment of a session until a set of preconditions are met.
   Although only Quality of Service (QoS) preconditions have been
   defined so far, this framework supports different preconditions
   types.  (QoS preconditions are defined by RFC 3312 [3] as well.)

   This document updates RFC 3312 [3].  We provide guidelines for
   authors of new precondition types and explain which topics they need
   to discuss when defining them.  In addition, we update some of the
   procedures in RFC 3312 to be able to use SIP preconditions in
   situations that involve session mobility, as described below.

   RFC 3312 [3] focuses on media sessions that do not move around.  That
   is, media is sent between the same end-points throughout the duration
   of the session.  Nevertheless, media sessions established by SIP are
   not always static.

   SIP offers mechanisms to provide session mobility, namely re-INVITEs
   and UPDATEs [5].  While existing implementations of RFC 3312 [3] can
   probably handle session mobility, there is a need to explicitly point
   out the issues involved and make a slight update to some of the
   procedures defined there.  With the updated procedures defined in
   this document, messages carrying precondition information become more
   explicit about the current status of the preconditions.

2.  Terminology

   In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
   "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT
   RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as
   described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [1] and indicate requirement levels for
   compliant implementations.

3.  Defining New Precondition Types

   Specifications defining new precondition types need to discuss the
   topics described in this section.  Having clear definitions of new
   precondition types is essential to ensure interoperability among
   different implementations.

3.1  Precondition Type Tag

   New precondition types MUST have an associated precondition type tag
   (e.g., "qos" is the tag for QoS preconditions).  The IANA registry
   for precondition types can be found at:



Camarillo & Kyzivat      Expires March 30, 2005                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft       Preconditions Framework Update       September 2004


   http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-precond-types

   Authors of new preconditions MUST register new precondition types,
   and their tags, with the IANA following the instructions in Section
   15 of RFC 3312 [3].

3.2  Status Type

   RFC 3312 [3] defines two status types: end-to-end and segmented.
   Specifications defining new precondition types MUST indicate which of
   these status applies to the new precondition.  New preconditions can
   use only one status type or both.  For example, the QoS preconditions
   defined in RFC 3312 can use both [3].

3.3  Precondition Strength

   RFC 3312 [3] defines optional and mandatory preconditions.
   Specifications defining new precondition types MUST describe whether
   or not optional preconditions are applicable, and in case they are,
   what is the expected behavior of a UA on reception of optional
   preconditions.

3.4  Suspending and Resuming Session Establishment

   Section 6 of RFC 3312 [3] describes the behavior of UAs from the
   moment session establishment is suspended due to a set of
   preconditions until is resumed when these preconditions are met.  In
   general, the called user is not alterted until the preconditions are
   met.

   Still, in addition to not alerting the user, each precondition type
   MUST define any extra actions UAs should perform or refrain from
   performing when session establishment is suspended.  The behavior of
   media streams during session suspension is therefore part of the
   definition of a particular precondition type.  Some precondition
   types may allow media streams to send and receive packets during
   session suspension; others may not.  Consequently, the following
   paragraph from RFC 3312 only appplies to QoS preconditions:

      While session establishment is suspended, user agents SHOULD not
      send any data over any media stream.  In the case of RTP, neither
      RTP nor RTCP packets are sent.

   As a clarification to the previous paragraph, the control messages
   used to establish connections in connection-oriented transport
   protocols (e.g., TCP SYNs) are not affected by the previous rule.
   So, user agents follow standard rules (e.g., the SDP a:setup
   attribute [7]) to decide when to establish the connection, regardless



Camarillo & Kyzivat      Expires March 30, 2005                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft       Preconditions Framework Update       September 2004


   of the presence of QoS preconditions.

   New precondition types MUST also describe the behaviour of UAs on
   reception of a re-INVITE or an UPDATE with preconditions for an
   ongoing session.

4.  Issues Related to Session Mobility

   Section 5 oft RFC 3312 [3] describes how to use SIP [2] preconditions
   with the offer/answer model [4].  RFC 3312 gives a set of rules that
   allow a user agent to communicate changes in the current status of
   the preconditions to the remote user agent.

   The idea is that a given user agent knows about the current status of
   some part of the preconditions (e.g., send direction of the QoS
   precondition) through local information (e.g., an RSVP RESV is
   received indicating that resource reservation was successful).  The
   UAC (User Agent Client) informs the UAS (User Agent Server) about
   changes in the current status by sending an offer to the UAS.  The
   UAS, in turn, could (if needed) send an offer to the UAC informing it
   about the status of the part of the preconditions the UAS has local
   information about.

      Note, however, that UASs do not usually send updates about the
      current status to the UAC because UASs are the ones resuming
      session establishment when all the preconditions are met.
      Therefore, rather than performing an offer/answer exchange to
      inform the UAC that all the preconditions are met, they simply
      send a 180 (Ringing) response indicating that session
      establishment has been resumed.

   While RFC 3312 [3] allows to update current status information using
   offers as described above, it does not allow to downgrade current
   status values in answers, as shown in the third row of Table 3 of RFC
   3312.  However, such downgrades are sometimes needed.  Figure 1 shows
   an example where performing such a downgrade in an answer would be
   needed.














Camarillo & Kyzivat      Expires March 30, 2005                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft       Preconditions Framework Update       September 2004


                            3pcc
                 A       Controller        B        C

                 |            |            |        |
                 |<-dialog 1->|<-dialog 2->|        |
                 |            |            |        |
                 | *********************** |        |
                 |*         MEDIA         *|        |
                 | *********************** |        |
                 |            |            |        |
                 |            |            |        |
                 |<-dialog 1->|<------dialog 3----->|
                 |            |            |        |
                 | ******************************** |
                 |*             MEDIA              *|
                 | ******************************** |
                 |            |            |        |
                 |            |            |        |

                 Figure 1: Session mobility using 3pcc

   The 3pcc (Third Party Call Control) [6] controller in Figure 1 has
   established a session between A and B using dialog 1 towards A and
   dialog 2 towards B.  At that point, the controller wants A to have a
   session with C instead of B.  To transfer A to C (configuration shown
   at the bottom of Figure 1, the controller sends an empty (no offer)
   re-INVITE to A.  Since A does not know that the session will be
   moved, its offer in the 200 OK states that the current status of the
   media stream in the send direction is "Yes".  The controller, after
   contacting C establishing dialog 3, sends back an answer to A.  This
   answer contains a new destination for the media (C) and should have
   downgraded the current status of the media stream to "No", since
   there is no reservation of resources between A and C.

4.1  Update to RFC 3312

   Below there are a set of new rules that update RFC 3312 [3] to
   address the issues above.

   The rule below applies to offerers that are moving a media stream to
   a new address:

   When a stream is being moved to a new transport address, the offerer
   MUST set all the current status values it does not have local
   information about to "No".

   Note that for streams using segmented status (as opposed to
   end-to-end status), the fact that the address for the media stream at



Camarillo & Kyzivat      Expires March 30, 2005                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft       Preconditions Framework Update       September 2004


   the local segment changes may or may not affect the status of the
   preconditions at the remote segment.  However, moving an existing
   stream to a new location, from the preconditions point of view, is
   like establishing a new stream.  Therefore, it is appropriate to set
   all the current status values to "No" and start a new precondition
   negotiation from scratch.

   The updated table and the rules below applies to an answerer that is
   moving a media stream.  That is, the offerer was not aware of the
   move when it generated the offer.

   Table 3 of RFC 3312 [3] needs to be updated to allow answers to
   downgrade current status values.  The following table shows the
   result.


   Transac. status table  Local status table  New values transac./local
   ____________________________________________________________________
            no                    no                    no/no
           yes                   yes                   yes/yes
           yes                    no            depends on local info
            no                   yes            depends on local info

   An answerer MUST downgrade the current status values that received in
   the offer if it has local information about them or if the media
   stream is being moved to a new transport address.

   Note that for streams using segmented status the address change at
   the answerer may or may not affect the status of the preconditions at
   the offerer's segment.  However, as stated above, moving an existing
   stream to a new location, from the preconditions point of view, is
   like establishing a new stream.  Therefore, it is appropriate to set
   all the current status values to "No" and start a new precondition
   negotiation from scratch.

   The new table below applies to an offerer that receives an answer
   that updates or downgrades its local status tables.

   Offerers should update their local status tables when they receive an
   answer as shown in the following table.


   Transac. status table  Local status table  New value Local Status
   _________________________________________________________________
            no                    no                    no
           yes                   yes                   yes
           yes                    no                   yes
            no                   yes                    no



Camarillo & Kyzivat      Expires March 30, 2005                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft       Preconditions Framework Update       September 2004


4.2  Desired Status

   The desired status that a UA wants for a media stream after the
   stream is moved to a new transport address may be different than the
   desired status negotiated for the stream originally.  A UA, for
   instance, may require mandatory QoS over a low-bandwidth link but be
   satisfied with optional QoS when the stream is moved to a
   high-bandwidth link.

   If the new desired status is higher than the previous one (e.g.,
   optional to mandatory), the UA, following RFC 3312 procedures, may
   upgrade its desired status in an offer or in an answer.  If the new
   desired status is lower that the previous one (e.g., mandatory to
   optional), the UA, following RFC 3312 procedures as well, may
   downgrade its desired status only in an offer (i.e., not in an
   answer.)

5.  Security Considerations

   An attacker adding preconditions to a session description or
   modifying existing preconditions could keep sessions from being
   established.  An attacker removing preconditions from a session
   description could force sessions to be established without meeting
   mandatory preconditions.

   It is thus strongly RECOMMENDED that integrity protection be applied
   to the SDP session descriptions.  S/MIME is the natural choice to
   provide such end-to-end integrity protection, as described in RFC
   3261 [2].

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA considerations.

7.  Acknowledges

   Dave Oran and Allison Mankin provided useful comments on this
   document.

8.  References

8.1  Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
        Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M. and E. Schooler, "SIP:



Camarillo & Kyzivat      Expires March 30, 2005                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft       Preconditions Framework Update       September 2004


        Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.

   [3]  Camarillo, G., Marshall, W. and J. Rosenberg, "Integration of
        Resource Management and Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC
        3312, October 2002.

8.2  Informational References

   [4]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with
        Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002.

   [5]  Rosenberg, J., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) UPDATE
        Method", RFC 3311, October 2002.

   [6]  Rosenberg, J., Peterson, J., Schulzrinne, H. and G. Camarillo,
        "Best Current Practices for Third Party Call Control (3pcc) in
        the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", BCP 85, RFC 3725, April
        2004.

   [7]  Yon, D., "Connection-Oriented Media Transport in the Session
        Description Protocol  (SDP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-comedia-08
        (work in progress), July 2004.


Authors' Addresses

   Gonzalo Camarillo
   Ericsson
   Hirsalantie 11
   Jorvas  02420
   Finland

   EMail: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com


   Paul Kyzivat
   Cisco Systems
   1414 Massachusetts Avenue, BXB500 C2-2
   Boxborough, MA  01719
   USA

   EMail: pkyzivat@cisco.com









Camarillo & Kyzivat      Expires March 30, 2005                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft       Preconditions Framework Update       September 2004


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Camarillo & Kyzivat      Expires March 30, 2005                [Page 10]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/