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

Versions: (draft-camarillo-sipcore-reinvite) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 6141

SIPCORE                                                G. Camarillo, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                               C. Holmberg
Updates: 3261 (if approved)                                     Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Y. Gao
Expires: July 23, 2010                                               ZTE
                                                        January 19, 2010


Re-INVITE and Target-refresh Request Handling in the Session Initiation
                             Protocol (SIP)
                   draft-ietf-sipcore-reinvite-01.txt

Abstract

   In this document, we clarify the handling of re-INVITEs in SIP.  We
   clarify in which situations a UAS (User Agent Server) should generate
   a success response and in which situations a UAS should generate an
   error response to a re-INVITE.  Additionally, we clarify issues
   related to target-refresh requests.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   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 July 23, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.




Camarillo, et al.         Expires July 23, 2010                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          Re-INVITE Handling in SIP           January 2010


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Re-INVITE Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  Background on Re-INVITE Handling by UASs . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2.  Problems with Error Responses and Already-executed
           Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.3.  UAS Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.4.  UAC Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.5.  Glare Situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.6.  Example of UAS Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.7.  Example of UAC Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     3.8.  Clarifications on Cancelling Re-INVITEs  . . . . . . . . . 16
   4.  Target-refresh Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     4.1.  Background on Target-refresh Requests  . . . . . . . . . . 17
     4.2.  Clarification on the Atomicity of Target-Refresh
           Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     4.3.  UAC Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     4.4.  UAS Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     4.5.  Race Conditions and Target Refreshes . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   5.  Re-INVITE Transaction Routing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     5.1.  Background on re-INVITE Transaction Routing  . . . . . . . 20
     5.2.  Problems with UAs Losing their Contact . . . . . . . . . . 20
     5.3.  UAS Losing its Contact: UAC Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     5.4.  UAC Losing its Contact: UAS Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     5.5.  UAC Losing its Contact: UAC Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   9.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23








Camarillo, et al.         Expires July 23, 2010                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          Re-INVITE Handling in SIP           January 2010


1.  Introduction

   As discussed in Section 14 of RFC 3261 [RFC3261], an INVITE request
   sent within an existing dialog is known as a re-INVITE.  A re-INVITE
   is used to modify session parameters, dialog parameters, or both.
   That is, a single re-INVITE can change both the parameters of its
   associated session (e.g., changing the IP address where a media
   stream is received) and the parameters of its associated dialog
   (e.g., changing the remote target of the dialog).  A re-INVITE can
   change the remote target of a dialog because it is a target refresh
   request, as defined in Section 6 of RFC 3261 [RFC3261].

   A re-INVITE transaction has an offer/answer [RFC3264] exchange
   associated to it.  The UAC (User Agent Client) generating a given re-
   INVITE can act as the offerer or as the answerer.  A UAC willing to
   act the offerer includes an offer in the re-INVITE.  The UAS then
   provides an answer in a response to the re-INVITE.  A UAC willing to
   act as answerer does not include an offer in the re-INVITE.  The UAS
   then provides an offer in a response to the re-INVITE becoming, thus,
   the offerer.

   Certain transactions within a re-INVITE (e.g., UPDATE [RFC3311]
   transactions) can also have offer/answer exchanges associated to
   them.  A UA (User Agent) can act as the offerer or the answerer in
   any of these transactions regardless of whether the UA was the
   offerer or the answerer in the umbrella re-INVITE transaction.

   There has been some confusion among implentors regarding how a UAS
   (User Agent Server) should handle re-INVITEs.  In particular,
   implementors requested clarification on which type of response a UAS
   should generate in different situations.  In this document, we
   clarify these issues.

   Additionally, there has also been some confusion among implementors
   regarding target refresh requests, which include but are not limited
   to re-INVITEs.  In this document, we also clarify the process by
   which remote targets are refreshed.


2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   UA: User Agent.

   UAC: User Agent Client.



Camarillo, et al.         Expires July 23, 2010                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          Re-INVITE Handling in SIP           January 2010


   UAS: User Agent Server.


3.  Re-INVITE Handling

   The following sections discuss re-INVITE handling.

3.1.  Background on Re-INVITE Handling by UASs

   A UAS receiving a re-INVITE will need to, eventually, generate a
   response to it.  Some re-INVITEs can be responded to immediately
   because their handling does not require user interaction (e.g.,
   changing the IP address where a media stream is received).  The
   handling of other re-INVITEs requires user interaction (e.g., adding
   a video stream to an audio-only session).  Therefore, these re-
   INVITEs cannot be responded to immediately.

   An error response to a re-INVITE has the following semantics.  As
   specified in Section 12.2.2 of RFC 3261 [RFC3261], if a re-INVITE is
   rejected, no state changes are performed.  These state changes
   include state changes associated to the re-INVITE transaction and all
   other transactions within the re-INVITE (target refreshes, which are
   discussed in Section 4.1, are an exception to this rule because in
   certain cases they are performed even if the re-INVITE is rejected).
   That is, the session and dialog states are the same as before the re-
   INVITE was received.  The example in Figure 1 illustrates this point.



                 UAC                                          UAS

                  |                                            |
                  |-------------(1) INVITE SDP1--------------->|
                  |                                            |
                  |<------------(2) 200 OK SDP2----------------|
                  |                                            |
                  |------------------(3) ACK------------------>|
                  |                                            |
                  |                                            |
                  |-------------(4) INVITE SDP3--------------->|
                  |                                            |
                  |<-----------------(5) 4xx-------------------|
                  |                                            |
                  |------------------(6) ACK------------------>|
                  |                                            |






Camarillo, et al.         Expires July 23, 2010                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          Re-INVITE Handling in SIP           January 2010


                    Figure 1: Rejection of a re-INVITE

   The UAs perform an offer/answer exchange to establish an audio-only
   session:


         SDP1:
            m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 0

         SDP2:
            m=audio 31000 RTP/AVP 0

   At a later point, the UAC sends a re-INVITE (4) in order to add a
   video stream to the session.


         SDP3:
            m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 0
            m=video 30002 RTP/AVP 31

   The UAS is automatically configured to reject video streams.
   Consequently, the UAS returns an error response (5).  At that point,
   the session parameters in use are still those resulting from the
   initial offer/answer exchange, which are described by SDP1 and SDP2.
   That is, the session and dialog states are the same as before the re-
   INVITE was received.

   In the previous example, the UAS rejected all the changes requested
   in the re-INVITE by returning an error response.  However, there are
   situations where a UAS wants to accept some but not all the changes
   requested in a re-INVITE.  In these cases, the UAS generates a 200
   (OK) response with an SDP indicating which changes were accepted and
   which were not.  The example in Figure 2 illustrates this point.


















Camarillo, et al.         Expires July 23, 2010                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          Re-INVITE Handling in SIP           January 2010


                 UAC                                          UAS

                  |                                            |
                  |-------------(1) INVITE SDP1--------------->|
                  |                                            |
                  |<------------(2) 200 OK SDP2----------------|
                  |                                            |
                  |------------------(3) ACK------------------>|
                  |                                            |
                  |                                            |
                  |-------------(4) INVITE SDP3--------------->|
                  |                                            |
                  |<------------(5) 200 OK SDP4----------------|
                  |                                            |
                  |------------------(6) ACK------------------>|
                  |                                            |


              Figure 2: Automatic rejection of a video stream

   The UAs perform an offer/answer exchange to establish an audio only
   session:


         SDP1:
            m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 0
            c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1

         SDP2:
            m=audio 31000 RTP/AVP 0
            c=IN IP4 192.0.2.5

   At a later point, the UAC moves to an access that provides a higher-
   bandwidth.  Therefore, the UAC sends a re-INVITE (4) in order to
   change the IP address where it receives the audio stream to its new
   IP address, and add a video stream to the session.


         SDP3:
            m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 0
            c=IN IP4 192.0.2.2
            m=video 30002 RTP/AVP 31
            c=IN IP4 192.0.2.2

   The UAS is automatically configured to reject video streams.
   However, the UAS needs to accept the change of the audio stream's
   remote IP address.  Consequently, the UAS returns a 200 (OK) response
   and sets the port of the video stream to zero in its SDP.



Camarillo, et al.         Expires July 23, 2010                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          Re-INVITE Handling in SIP           January 2010


         SDP4:
            m=audio 31000 RTP/AVP 0
            c=IN IP4 192.0.2.5
            m=video 0 RTP/AVP 31
            c=IN IP4 192.0.2.2

   In the previous example, the UAS was configured to automatically
   reject the addition of video streams.  The example in Figure 3
   assumes that the UAS requires its user's input in order to accept or
   reject the addition of a video stream and uses reliable provisional
   responses [RFC3262] (PRACK transactions are not shown for clarity).



                 UAC                                          UAS

                  |                                            |
                  |-------------(1) INVITE SDP1--------------->|
                  |                                            |
                  |<------------(2) 200 OK SDP2----------------|
                  |                                            |
                  |------------------(3) ACK------------------>|
                  |                                            |
                  |                                            |
                  |-------------(4) INVITE SDP3--------------->|
                  |                                            |
                  |<----(5) 183 Session Progress SDP4----------|
                  |                                            |
                  |                                            |
                  |<------------(6) UPDATE SDP5----------------|
                  |                                            |
                  |-------------(7) 200 OK SDP6--------------->|
                  |                                            |
                  |<---------------(8) 200 OK------------------|
                  |                                            |
                  |------------------(9) ACK------------------>|
                  |                                            |


             Figure 3: Rejection of a video stream by the user

   Everything up to (4) is identical to the previous example.  In (5),
   the UAS accepts the change of the audio stream's remote IP address
   but does not accept the video stream yet (it provides a null IP
   address instead of setting the stream to 'inactive' because inactive
   streams still need to exchange RTCP traffic).





Camarillo, et al.         Expires July 23, 2010                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          Re-INVITE Handling in SIP           January 2010


         SDP4:
            m=audio 31000 RTP/AVP 0
            c=IN IP4 192.0.2.5
            m=video 31002 RTP/AVP 31
            c=IN IP4 0.0.0.0

   At a later point, the UAS's user rejects the addition of the video
   stream.  Consequently, the UAS sends an UPDATE request setting the
   port of the video stream to zero in its SDP.


         SDP5:
            m=audio 31000 RTP/AVP 0
            c=IN IP4 192.0.2.5
            m=video 0 RTP/AVP 31
            c=IN IP4 0.0.0.0

   The UAS now returns a 200 (OK) response to the re-INVITE.

   In all the previous examples, the UAC was the offerer in the re-
   INVITE transaction.  Examples with UACs acting as the answerers would
   be similar.

3.2.  Problems with Error Responses and Already-executed Changes

   Section 3.1 contains examples on how a UAS rejects all the changes
   requested in a re-INVITE without executing any of them by returning
   an error response (Figure 1), and how a UAS executes some of the
   changes requested in a re-INVITE and rejects some of them by
   returning a 2xx response (Figure 2 and Figure 3).  A UAS can accept
   and reject different sets of changes simultaneously (Figure 2) or at
   different times (Figure 3).

   The scenario that created confusion among implementors consists of a
   UAS that receives a re-INVITE, executes some of the changes requested
   in it, and then wants to reject all those already-executed changes
   and revert to the pre-re-INVITE state.  Such a UAS may consider
   returning an error response to the re-INVITE (the message flow would
   be similar to the one in Figure 1), or using an UPDATE request to
   revert to the pre-re-INVITE state and then returning a 2xx response
   to the re-INVITE (the message flow would be similar to the one in
   Figure 3).  This section explains the problems associated with
   returning an error response in these circumstances.  In order to
   avoid these problems, the UAS should use the latter option (UPDATE
   request plus a 2xx response).  Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 contain
   the normative statements needed to avoid these problems.

   The reason for not using an error response to undo already executed



Camarillo, et al.         Expires July 23, 2010                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          Re-INVITE Handling in SIP           January 2010


   changes is that an error response to a re-INVITE for which changes
   have already been executed is effectively requesting a change in the
   session or the dialog state.  However, the UAC has no means to reject
   those changes if it is unable to execute them.  That is, if the UAC
   is unable to revert to the pre-re-INVITE state, it will not be able
   to communicate this fact to the UAS.

3.3.  UAS Behavior

   UASs should only return an error response to a re-INVITE if no
   changes to the session or to the dialog state have been executed
   since the re-INVITE was received.  Such an error response indicates
   that no changes have been executed as a result of the re-INVITE or
   any other transaction within it.

   If any of the changes requested in a re-INVITE or in any transaction
   within it have already been executed (with the exception of target
   refreshes), the UAS SHOULD return a 2xx response.

   A change to the session state is considered to have been executed if
   an offer/answer without preconditions [RFC4032] for the stream has
   completed successfully or the UAs have exchanged media using the new
   parameters.  Connection establishment messages (e.g., TCP SYN),
   connectivity checks (e.g., when using ICE [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice]), and
   any other messages used in the process of meeting the preconditions
   for a stream are not considered media.

   The successful completion of an offer/answer exchange without
   preconditions indicates that the new parameters for the media stream
   are already considered to be in use.  The successful completion of an
   offer/answer exchange with preconditions means something different.
   The fact that all mandatory preconditions for the stream are met
   indicates that the new parameters for the media stream are ready to
   be used.  However, they will not actually be used until the UAS
   decides so.  During a session establishment, the UAS can wait for
   using the media parameters until the callee starts being alerted or
   until the callee accepts the session.  During a session modification,
   the UAS can wait until its user accepts the changes to the session.
   When dealing with streams where the UAS sends media more or less
   continuously, the UAC notices that the new parameters are in use
   because the UAC receives media that uses the new parameters.
   However, this mechanism does not work with other types of streams.
   Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that when a UAS decides to start using
   the new parameters for a stream for which all mandatory preconditions
   have been met, the UAS either sends media using the new parameters or
   sends a new offer where the precondition-related attributes for the
   stream have been removed.  As indicated above, the successful
   completion of an offer/answer exchange without preconditions



Camarillo, et al.         Expires July 23, 2010                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          Re-INVITE Handling in SIP           January 2010


   indicates that the new parameters for the media stream are already
   considered to be in use.

   The point a change to the dialog state is considered to have been
   executed depends on the particular dialog parameter being modified.
   The specifications of different dialog parameters describe when the
   new value of the parameter needs to be taken into use.

3.4.  UAC Behavior

   A UAC that receives an error response to a re-INVITE that undoes
   already-executed changes within the re-INVITE may be facing a legacy
   UAS that does not support this specification (i.e., a UAS that does
   not follow the guidelines in Section 3.3).  There are also certain
   race condition situations that get both user agents out of
   synchronization.  In order to cope with these race condition
   situations, a UAC that receives an error response to a re-INVITE for
   which changes have been already executed SHOULD generate a new re-
   INVITE or UPDATE request in order to make sure that both UAs have a
   common view of the state of the dialog and the session (the UAC uses
   the criteria in Section 3.3 in order to decide whether or not changes
   have been executed for the stream).  The purpose of this new offer/
   answer exchange is to synchronize both UAs, not to request changes
   that the UAS may choose to reject.  Therefore, the dialog parameters
   and the session parameters in the offer/answer exchange SHOULD be as
   close as those in the pre-re-INVITE state as possible.

3.5.  Glare Situations

   Section 4 of RFC 3264 [RFC3264] specifies rules to avoid and detect
   glare situations (i.e., to avoid offer/answer collisions in race
   conditions).  Section 14.1 of RFC 3261 [RFC3261] specifies general
   rules to handle glare situations in SIP.  Section 5.1 of RFC 3311
   [RFC3311] specifies when UPDATE requests can be sent.  The specified
   rules include, among other things, procedures to cope with situations
   where both UAs generate an offer at the same time.  However, there
   are no rules to avoid a collision between an offer in an UPDATE
   request and an error response to a re-INVITE.  Since both the UPDATE
   request and the error response could be requesting changes, it would
   not be clear which changes would need to be executed first.  The
   following rules avoid types of glare conditions that were not covered
   by previous specifications.

   When checking for glare situations, UAs MUST treat the exchange of a
   non-2xx final response to a re-INVITE and its corresponding ACK
   request as an offer/answer exchange.  Consequently, the rules
   regarding glare situations applicable to offer/answer exchanges are
   also applicable to those exchanges.  These rules imply that if the



Camarillo, et al.         Expires July 23, 2010                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          Re-INVITE Handling in SIP           January 2010


   UAS of a re-INVITE transaction receives and UPDATE request with an
   offer after having sent a non-2xx final response to the re-INVITE but
   before having received the corresponding ACK request, the UA SHOULD
   return a 491 (Request Pending) response to the UPDATE request.  If
   the UAC of a re-INVITE transaction sends an UPDATE request with an
   offer, receives a non-2xx response to the re-INVITE, and then a 2xx
   response to the UPDATE request, the UA SHOULD generate a new re-
   INVITE or UPDATE request in order to make sure that both UAs have a
   common view of the state of the session, as described in Section 3.4.

   An UPDATE request without an offer can change dialog parameters.  So
   can a non-2xx final response to a re-INVITE request or a 2xx response
   to an INVITE request (re-INVITE or initial INVITE).  However, there
   are no rules to avoid a collision between an offerless UPDATE request
   and a final response to an INVITE request.  The rules in Section 4.5,
   which are given in the context of target refreshes, cover these types
   of collisions as well.  Therefore, there is no need to specify
   further rules here.

3.6.  Example of UAS Behavior

   This section contains an example of a UAS that implements this
   specification using an UPDATE request and a 2xx response to a re-
   INVITE in order to revert to the pre-re-INVITE state.  The example,
   which is shown in Figure 4, assumes that the UAS requires its user's
   input in order to accept or reject the addition of a video stream and
   uses reliable provisional responses [RFC3262] (PRACK transactions are
   not shown for clarity).























Camarillo, et al.         Expires July 23, 2010                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          Re-INVITE Handling in SIP           January 2010


                 UAC                                          UAS

                  |                                            |
                  |-------------(1) INVITE SDP1--------------->|
                  |                                            |
                  |<------------(2) 200 OK SDP2----------------|
                  |                                            |
                  |------------------(3) ACK------------------>|
                  |                                            |
                  |                                            |
                  |-------------(4) INVITE SDP3--------------->|
                  |                                            |
                  |<----(5) 183 Session Progress SDP4----------|
                  |                                            |
                  |-------------(6) UPDATE SDP5--------------->|
                  |                                            |
                  |<------------(7) 200 OK SDP6----------------|
                  |                                            |
                  |                                            |
                  |<------------(8) UPDATE SDP7----------------|
                  |                                            |
                  |-------------(9) 200 OK SDP8--------------->|
                  |                                            |
                  |<--------------(10) 200 OK------------------|
                  |                                            |
                  |-----------------(11) ACK------------------>|
                  |                                            |


             Figure 4: Rejection of a video stream by the user

   The UAs perform an offer/answer exchange to establish an audio only
   session:


         SDP1:
            m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 0
            c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1

         SDP2:
            m=audio 31000 RTP/AVP 0
            c=IN IP4 192.0.2.5

   At a later point, the UAC sends a re-INVITE (4) in order to add a new
   codec to the audio stream and to add a video stream to the session.






Camarillo, et al.         Expires July 23, 2010                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          Re-INVITE Handling in SIP           January 2010


         SDP3:
            m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 0 3
            c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1
            m=video 30002 RTP/AVP 31
            c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1

   In (5), the UAS accepts the addition of the audio codec but does not
   accept the video stream yet (it provides a null IP address instead of
   setting the stream to 'inactive' because inactive streams still need
   to exchange RTCP traffic).


         SDP4:
            m=audio 31000 RTP/AVP 0 3
            c=IN IP4 192.0.2.5
            m=video 31002 RTP/AVP 31
            c=IN IP4 0.0.0.0

   At a later point, the UAC sends an UPDATE request (6) to remove the
   original audio codec from the audio stream (the UAC could have also
   used the PRACK to (5) to request this change).


         SDP5:
            m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 3
            c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1
            m=video 30002 RTP/AVP 31
            c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1

         SDP6:
            m=audio 31000 RTP/AVP 3
            c=IN IP4 192.0.2.5
            m=video 31002 RTP/AVP 31
            c=IN IP4 0.0.0.0

   Yet at a later point, the UAS's user rejects the addition of the
   video stream.  Additionally, the UAS decides to revert to the
   original audio codec.  Consequently, the UAS sends an UPDATE request
   (8) setting the port of the video stream to zero and offering the
   original audio codec in its SDP.


         SDP7:
            m=audio 31000 RTP/AVP 0
            c=IN IP4 192.0.2.5
            m=video 0 RTP/AVP 31
            c=IN IP4 0.0.0.0




Camarillo, et al.         Expires July 23, 2010                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft          Re-INVITE Handling in SIP           January 2010


   The UAC accepts the change in the audio codec in its 200 (OK)
   response (9) to the UPDATE request.


         SDP8:
            m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 0
            c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1
            m=video 0 RTP/AVP 31
            c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1

   The UAS now returns a 200 (OK) response (10) to the re-INVITE.  Note
   that the media state after this 200 (OK) response is the same as the
   pre-re-INVITE media state.

3.7.  Example of UAC Behavior

   Figure 5 shows an example of a race condition situation in which the
   UAs end up with different views of the state of the session.  The UAs
   in Figure 5 are involved in a session that, just before the message
   flows in the figures starts, includes a sendrecv audio stream and an
   inactive video stream.  UA1 sends a re-INVITE (1) requesting to make
   the video stream sendrecv.


         SDP1:
            m=audio 20000 RTP/AVP 0
            a=sendrecv
            m=video 20002 RTP/AVP 31
            a=sendrecv

   UA2 is configured to automatically accept incoming video streams but
   to ask for user input before generating an outgoing video stream.
   Therefore, UAS2 makes the video stream recvonly by returning a 183
   (Session Progress) response (2).


         SDP2:
            m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 0
            a=sendrecv
            m=video 30002 RTP/AVP 31
            a=recvonly

   When asked for input, UA2's user chooses not to have either incoming
   or outgoing video.  In order to make the video stream inactive, UA2
   returns a 4xx error response (5) to the re-INVITE.  The ACK request
   (6) for this error response is generated by the proxy between both
   user agents.  Note that this error response undoes already-executed
   changes.  So, UA2 is a legacy UA that does not support this



Camarillo, et al.         Expires July 23, 2010                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft          Re-INVITE Handling in SIP           January 2010


   specification.

   The proxy relays the 4xx response (7) towards UA1.  However, the 4xx
   response (7) takes time to arrive to UA1 (e.g., the response may have
   been sent over UDP and the first few retransmissions were lost).  In
   the meantime, UA2's user decides to put the audio stream on hold.
   UA2 sends an UPDATE request (8) making the audio stream recvonly.
   The video stream, which is inactive, is not modified and, thus,
   continues being inactive.


         SDP3:
            m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 0
            a=recvonly
            m=video 30002 RTP/AVP 31
            a=inactive

   The proxy relays the UPDATE request (9) to UA1.  The UPDATE request
   (9) arrives at UA1 before the 4xx response (7) that had been
   previously sent.  UA2 accepts the changes in the UPDATE request and
   returns a 200 (OK) response (10) to it .

   SDP4: m=audio 20000 RTP/AVP 0 a=sendonly m=video 30002 RTP/AVP 31
   a=inactive

   At a later point, the 4xx response (7) finally arrives at UA1.  This
   response makes the session return to its pre-re-INVITE state.
   Therefore, for UA1, the audio stream is sendrecv and the video stream
   is inactive.  However, for UA2, the audio stream is recvonly (the
   video stream is also inactive).





















Camarillo, et al.         Expires July 23, 2010                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft          Re-INVITE Handling in SIP           January 2010


  a:sendrecv                                                  a:sendrecv
  v:inactive                                                  v:inactive

             UA1                   Proxy                   UA2

              |                      |                      |
              |----(1) INVITE SDP1-->|                      |
              |                      |----(2) INVITE SDP1-->|
              |                      |                      |
              |                      |<----(3) 183 SDP2-----| a:sendrecv
  a:sendrecv  |<----(4) 183 SDP2-----|                      | v:recvonly
  v:sendonly  |                      |                      |
              |                      |<------(5) 4xx -------|
              |                      |-------(6) ACK ------>| a:sendrecv
              |           +-(7) 4xx -|                      | v:inactive
              |           |          |<---(8) UPDATE SDP3---|
              |<---(9) UPDATE SDP3---|                      |
              |           |          |                      |
  a:sendonly  |---(10) 200 OK SDP4-->|                      |
  v:inactive  |           |          |---(11) 200 OK SDP4-->| a:recvonly
              |<-(7) 4xx -+          |                      | v:inactive
  a:sendrecv  |------(12) ACK ------>|                      |
  v:inactive  |                      |                      |

                       a: status of the audio stream
                       v: status of the video stream


                Figure 5: Message flow with race condition

   After the message flow in Figure 5, following the recommendations in
   this section, when UA1 received an error response (7) that undid
   already-executed changes, UA1 would generate an UPDATE request with
   an SDP reflecting the pre-re-INVITE state (i.e., sendrecv audio and
   inactive video).  UA2 could then return a 200 (OK) response to the
   UPDATE request making the audio stream recvonly, which is the state
   UA2's user had requested.  Such an UPDATE transaction would get the
   UAs back into synchronization.

3.8.  Clarifications on Cancelling Re-INVITEs

   Section 9.2 of RFC 3261 [RFC3261] specifies the behavior of a UAS
   responding to a CANCEL request.  Such a UAS responds to the INVITE
   request with a 487 (Request Terminated) at the 'should' level.  Per
   the rules specified in Section 3.3, if the INVITE request was a re-
   INVITE and some of its requested changes had already been executed,
   the UAS would return a 2xx response instead.




Camarillo, et al.         Expires July 23, 2010                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft          Re-INVITE Handling in SIP           January 2010


4.  Target-refresh Handling

   The following sections discuss target-refresh request handling.

4.1.  Background on Target-refresh Requests

   A target-refresh request is defined as follows in Section 6 of RFC
   3261 [RFC3261]:

      "A target-refresh request sent within a dialog is defined as a
      request that can modify the remote target of the dialog."

   Additionally, 2xx responses to target-refresh requests can also
   update the remote target of the dialog.  As discussed in Section 12.2
   of RFC 3261 [RFC3261], re-INVITEs are target-refresh requests.

   RFC 3261 [RFC3261] specifies the behavior of UASs receiving target-
   refresh requests and of UACs receiving a 2xx response for a target-
   refresh request.

   Section 12.2.2 of RFC 3261 [RFC3261] says:

      "When a UAS receives a target-refresh request, it MUST replace the
      dialog's remote target URI with the URI from the Contact header
      field in that request, if present."

   Section 12.2.1.2 of RFC 3261 [RFC3261] says:

      "When a UAC receives a 2xx response to a target-refresh request,
      it MUST replace the dialog's remote target URI with the URI from
      the Contact header field in that response, if present."

   The fact that re-INVITEs can be long-lived transactions and can have
   other transactions within them makes it necessary to revise these
   rules.  Section 4.2 specifies new rules for the handing of target-
   refresh requests.  Note that the new rules apply to any target-
   refresh request, not only to re-INVITEs.

4.2.  Clarification on the Atomicity of Target-Refresh Requests

   The remote target of a dialog is a special type of state information
   because of its essential role in the exchange of SIP messages between
   UAs in a dialog.  A UA involved in a dialog receives the remote
   target of the dialog from the remote UA.  The UA uses the remote
   target to send SIP requests to the remote UA.

   The remote target is a piece of state information that is not meant
   to be negotiated.  When a UAC changes its address, the UAC simply



Camarillo, et al.         Expires July 23, 2010                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft          Re-INVITE Handling in SIP           January 2010


   communicates its new address to the UAS in order to remain reachable
   by the UAS.  UAs need to follow the behavior specified in Section 4.3
   and Section 4.4 of this specification instead of that specified in
   RFC 3261 [RFC3261], which was discussed in Section 4.1.  The new
   behavior regarding target-refresh requests implies that a target-
   refresh request can, in some cases, update the remote target even if
   the request is responded with a final error response.  This means
   that target-refresh requests are not atomic.

4.3.  UAC Behavior

   Behavior of a UAC after having sent a target-refresh request updating
   the remote target:

   If the UAC receives an error response to the target-refresh request,
   the UAS has not updated its remote target.

      This allows UASs to authenticate target-refresh requests.

   If the UAC receives a reliable provisional response or a 2xx response
   to the target-refresh request, or the UAC receives a request on the
   new target, the UAS has updated its remote target.  The UAC can
   consider the target refresh operation completed.

      Even if the target request was a re-INVITE and the final response
      to the re-INVITE was an error response, the UAS would not revert
      to the pre-re-INVITE remote target.

   If the UAC receives a reliable provisional response or a 2xx response
   to the target-refresh request, the UAC MUST replace the dialog's
   remote target URI with the URI from the Contact header field in that
   response, if present.

   When interacting with a UACs that does not support reliable
   provisional responses or UPDATE requests, a UAC SHOULD NOT use the
   same target refresh request to refresh the target and to make session
   changes unless the session changes can be trivially accepted by the
   UAS (e.g., an IP address change).  Piggybacking a target refresh with
   more complicated session changes in this situation would make it
   unnecessarily complicated for the UAS to accept the target refresh
   while rejecting the session changes.

4.4.  UAS Behavior

   Behavior of a UAS after having received a target-refresh request
   updating the remote target:

   If the UAS receives a target-refresh request that has been properly



Camarillo, et al.         Expires July 23, 2010                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft          Re-INVITE Handling in SIP           January 2010


   authenticated, the UAS SHOULD generate a reliable provisional
   response or a 2xx response to the target-refresh request.  If
   generating such responses is not possible (e.g., the UAS does not
   support reliable provisional responses and needs user input before
   generating a final response), the UAS SHOULD send a request to the
   UAC using the new remote target (if the UAS does not need to send a
   request for other reasons, the UAS can send an UPDATE request).  On
   sending a reliable provisional response or a 2xx response to the
   target-refresh request, or a request to the new remote target, the
   UAS MUST replace the dialog's remote target URI with the URI from the
   Contact header field in the target-refresh request.

      Reliable provisional responses in SIP are specified in RFC 3262
      [RFC3262].  In this document, reliable provisional responses are
      those that use the mechanism defined in RFC 3262 [RFC3262] on any
      other SIP-based mechanism that may be specified in the future.
      Other specifications may define ways to send provisional responses
      reliably using non-SIP mechanisms (e.g., using media-level
      messages to acknowledge the reception of the SIP response).  For
      the purposes of this document, provisional responses using those
      non-SIP mechanisms are considered unreliable responses.

   If instead sending a reliable provisional response or a 2xx response
   to the target-refresh request, or a request to the new target, the
   UAS generates an error response to the target-refresh request, the
   UAS MUST NOT update its dialog's remote target.

4.5.  Race Conditions and Target Refreshes

   SIP provides request ordering by using the Cseq header field.  That
   is, a UAS that receives two requests at roughly the same time can
   know which one is newer.  However, SIP does not provide ordering
   between responses and requests.  For example, if a UA receives a 200
   (OK) response to an UPDATE request and an UPDATE request at roughly
   the same time, the UA cannot know which one was sent last.  Since
   both messages can refresh the remote target, the UA needs to know
   which message was sent last in order to know which remote target
   needs to be used.

   Some of the procedures discussed in Section 3.5 could avoid these
   types of situations.  However, they are currently defined only for
   SIP messages involved in offer/answer exchanges (e.g., the procedures
   do not apply to an UPDATE request that does not carry an offer).  The
   following rules make those procedures applicable to the race
   conditions described above so that UASs can cope with them.

   When checking for glare situations, UAs MUST treat every UPDATE
   request as if it contained an offer.  Additionally, UAs MUST treat



Camarillo, et al.         Expires July 23, 2010                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft          Re-INVITE Handling in SIP           January 2010


   the exchange of a 2xx response to an INVITE request and its
   corresponding ACK request as an offer/answer exchange.  Consequently,
   the rules regarding glare situations applicable to offer/answer
   exchanges are also applicable to those exchanges.


5.  Re-INVITE Transaction Routing

   The following sections discuss re-INVITE transaction routing.

5.1.  Background on re-INVITE Transaction Routing

   Re-INVITEs are routed using the dialog's route set, which contains
   all the proxy servers that need to be traversed by requests send
   within the dialog.  Responses to the re-INVITE are routed using the
   Via entries in the re-INVITE.

   ACK requests for 2xx responses and for non-2xx final responses are
   generated in different ways.  As specified in Sections 14.1 and
   13.2.1 of RFC 3261 [RFC3261], ACK requests for 2xx responses are
   generated by the UAC core and are routed using the dialog's route
   set.  As specified in Section 17.1.1.2 of RFC 3261 [RFC3261], ACK
   requests for non-2xx final responses are generated by the INVITE
   client transaction (i.e., they are generated in a hop-by-hop fashion
   by the proxy servers in the path) and are sent to the same transport
   address as the re-INVITE.

5.2.  Problems with UAs Losing their Contact

   Refreshing the dialog's remote target during a re-INVITE transaction
   (see Section 4.2) presents some issues because of the fact that Re-
   INVITE transactions can be long lived.  As described in Section 5.1,
   the way responses to the re-INVITE and ACKs for non-2xx final
   responses are routed is fixed once the re-INVITE is sent.  The
   routing of this messages does not depend on the dialog's route set
   and, thus, target refreshes within an ongoing re-INVITE do not affect
   their routing.  A UA that changes its location (i.e., performs a
   target refresh) but is still reachable at its old location will be
   able to receive those messages (which will be sent to the old
   location).  However, a UA that cannot be reachable at its old
   location any longer will not be able to receive them.

5.3.  UAS Losing its Contact: UAC Behavior

   When a UAS that moves to a new contact and loses its old contact
   generates a non-2xx final response to the re-INVITE, it will not be
   able to receive the ACK request.  The entity receiving the response
   and, thus, generating the ACK request will either get a transport



Camarillo, et al.         Expires July 23, 2010                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft          Re-INVITE Handling in SIP           January 2010


   error or a timeout error, which, as described in Section 8.1.3.1 of
   RFC 3261 [RFC3261], will be treated as a 503 (Service Unavailable)
   response and as a 408 (Request Timeout) response, respectively.  If
   the sender of the ACK request is a proxy server, it will typically
   ignore this error.  If the sender of the ACK request is the UAC,
   according to Section 12.2.1.2 of RFC 3261 [RFC3261], it is supposed
   to (at the "should" level) terminate the dialog by sending a BYE
   request.  However, because of the special properties of ACK requests
   for non-2xx final responses, most existing UACs do not terminate the
   dialog when ACK request fails, which is fortunate.

   A UAC that accepts a target refresh within a re-INVITE MUST ignore
   transport and timeout errors when generating an ACK request for a
   non-2xx final response if the UAC is communicating directly with the
   UAS (i.e., there are no proxy servers in the dialog's route set).

5.4.  UAC Losing its Contact: UAS Behavior

   When a UAC moves to a new contact and loses its old contact, it will
   not be able to receive responses to the re-INVITE.  Consequently, it
   will never generate an ACK request.

   As described in Section 16.9 of RFC 3261 [RFC3261], a proxy server
   that gets an error when forwarding a response does not take any
   measurements.  Consequently, proxy servers relaying responses will
   effectively ignore the error.

   If there are no proxy servers in the dialog's route set, the UAS will
   get an error when sending a non-2xx final response.  The UAS core
   will be notified of the transaction failure, as described in Section
   17.2.1 of RFC 3261 [RFC3261].  Most existing UASs do not terminate
   the dialog on encountering this failure, which is fortunate.

   A UAS that accepts a target refresh within a re-INVITE MUST ignore
   transport and timeout errors when generating a non-2xx final response
   to the re-INVITE if the UAS is communicating directly with the UAC
   (i.e., there are no proxy servers in the dialog's route set).

   Regardless of the presence or absence of proxy servers in the
   dialog's route set, a UAS generating a 2xx response to the re-INVITE
   will never receive an ACK request for it.  According to Section 14.2
   of RFC 3261 [RFC3261], such a UAS is supposed to (at the "should"
   level) terminate the dialog by sending a BYE request.

   A UAS that accepts a target refresh within a re-INVITE and never
   receives an ACK request after having sent a 2xx response to the re-
   INVITE SHOULD NOT terminate the dialog.  If the UA has received a new
   re-INVITE with a higher CSeq sequence number than the original one,



Camarillo, et al.         Expires July 23, 2010                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft          Re-INVITE Handling in SIP           January 2010


   the UA SHOULD just ignore the error.  If the UA has not received such
   a re-INVITE, UA SHOULD generate a new re-INVITE in order to make sure
   that both UAs have a common view of the state of the session.

      Note that the UA generates a re-INVITE and not an UPDATE request
      because UPDATE requests can be sent within a re-INVITE.  By
      accepting the incoming re-INVITE, the remote UA indicates that the
      old re-INVITE transaction has already been terminated.

   A 500 (Server Internal Error) response to the new re-INVITE would
   mean that the remote UA was still processing the original re-INVITE.
   This may be because the remote UA is a legacy UA that does not
   support this specification.  In this situation, the UA SHOULD follow
   the original recommendation in RFC 3261 [RFC3261] and terminate the
   dialog.

5.5.  UAC Losing its Contact: UAC Behavior

   When a UAC moves to a new contact and loses its old contact, it will
   not be able to receive responses to the re-INVITE.  Consequently, it
   will never generate an ACK request.

   Such a UAC SHOULD generate a CANCEL request to cancel the re-INVITE
   and cause the INVITE client transaction corresponding to the re-
   INVITE to enter the "Terminated" state.  The UAC SHOULD also send a
   new re-INVITE in order to make sure that both UAs have a common view
   of the state of the session.

      Per Section 14.2 of RFC 3261 [RFC3261], the UAS will accept new
      incoming re-INVITEs as soon as it has generated a final response
      to the previous INVITE request, which had a lower CSeq sequence
      number.


6.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce any new security issue.  It just
   clarifies how certain transactions should be handled in SIP.
   Security issues related to re-INVITEs and UPDATE requests are
   discussed in RFC 3261 [RFC3261] and RFC 3311 [RFC3311].


7.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA actions associated with this document.






Camarillo, et al.         Expires July 23, 2010                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft          Re-INVITE Handling in SIP           January 2010


8.  Acknowledgements

   Paul Kyzivat provided useful ideas on the topics discussed in this
   document.


9.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3262]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Reliability of
              Provisional Responses in Session Initiation Protocol
              (SIP)", RFC 3262, June 2002.

   [RFC3264]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
              with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3311]  Rosenberg, J., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
              UPDATE Method", RFC 3311, October 2002.

   [RFC4032]  Camarillo, G. and P. Kyzivat, "Update to the Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP) Preconditions Framework",
              RFC 4032, March 2005.

   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice]
              Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
              (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
              Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols",
              draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-19 (work in progress), October 2007.


Authors' Addresses

   Gonzalo Camarillo (editor)
   Ericsson
   Hirsalantie 11
   Jorvas  02420
   Finland

   Email: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com




Camarillo, et al.         Expires July 23, 2010                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft          Re-INVITE Handling in SIP           January 2010


   Christer Holmberg
   Ericsson
   Hirsalantie 11
   Jorvas  02420
   Finland

   Email: Christer.Holmberg@ericsson.com


   Yang Gao
   ZTE
   China

   Email: gao.yang2@zte.com.cn





































Camarillo, et al.         Expires July 23, 2010                [Page 24]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/