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

Versions: (draft-hasebe-sipping-race-examples) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 5407

sipping                                                        M. Hasebe
Internet-Draft                                                J. Koshiko
Intended status: Best Current                       NTT-east Corporation
Practice                                                       Y. Suzuki
Expires: August 21, 2008                                 NTT Corporation
                                                            T. Yoshikawa
                                                    NTT-east Corporation
                                                              P. Kyzivat
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                       February 18, 2008


    Example calls flows of race conditions in the Session Initiation
                             Protocol (SIP)
                  draft-ietf-sipping-race-examples-05

Status of this Memo

   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 becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 August 21, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

Abstract

   This document gives examples call flows of race conditions in the



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   Session Initiation Protocol (SIP).  Race conditions are inherently
   confusing and difficult to thwart; this document shows the best
   practices to handle them.  The elements in these call flows include
   SIP User Agents and SIP Proxy Servers.  Call flow diagrams and
   message details are given.


Table of Contents

   1.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  General Assumptions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  Legend for Message Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.3.  SIP Protocol Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  The Dialog State Machine for INVITE dialog usage . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Race Conditions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.1.  Receiving message in the Moratorium State  . . . . . . . . 12
       3.1.1.  Receiving Initial INVITE retransmission
               (Preparative state) while in the Moratorium state  . . 12
       3.1.2.  Receiving CANCEL (Early state) when in Moratorium
               state  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       3.1.3.  Receiving BYE (Early state) while in the
               Moratorium state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       3.1.4.  Receiving re-INVITE (Established state) while in
               the Moratorium state (case 1)  . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       3.1.5.  Receiving re-INVITE (Established state) while in
               the Moratorium state (case 2)  . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       3.1.6.  Receiving BYE (Established state) while in the
               Moratorium state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     3.2.  Receiving message in the Mortal State  . . . . . . . . . . 29
       3.2.1.  Receiving BYE (Established state) while in the
               Mortal state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
       3.2.2.  Receiving re-INVITE (Established state) while in
               the Mortal state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
       3.2.3.  Receiving 200 OK for re-INVITE (Established state)
               while in the Mortal state  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
       3.2.4.  Receiving ACK (Moratorium state) while in the
               Mortal state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
     3.3.  Other race conditions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
       3.3.1.  Re-INVITE crossover  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
       3.3.2.  UPDATE and re-INVITE crossover . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
       3.3.3.  Receiving REFER (Established state) while in the
               Mortal state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
   4.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
   6.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   Appendix A.  BYE in the Early Dialog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
   Appendix B.  BYE request overlapping with re-INVITE  . . . . . . . 52
   Appendix C.  UA's behavior for CANCEL  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
   Appendix D.  Notes on the request in the Mortal state  . . . . . . 57
   Appendix E.  Forking and receiving new To tags . . . . . . . . . . 57
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 64












































Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


1.  Overview

   The call flows shown in this document were developed in the design of
   a SIP IP communications network.  These examples are of race
   conditions, which stem from transitions in dialog states; mainly
   transitions during session establishment after the sending of an
   INVITE.

   When implementing SIP, various complex situations may arise.
   Therefore, it is helpful to provide implementors of the protocol with
   examples of recommended terminal and server behavior.

   This document clarifies SIP UA behaviors when messages cross each
   other as race conditions.  By clarifying the operation under race
   conditions, inconsistent interpretations between implementations are
   avoided and interoperability is expected to be promoted.

   It is the hope of the authors that this document will be useful for
   SIP implementors, designers, and protocol researchers and will help
   them achieve the goal of a standard implementation of RFC 3261 [1].

   These call flows are based on the version 2.0 of SIP defined in RFC
   3261 [1] with SDP usage as described in RFC 3264 [2].

   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 BCP 14, RFC 2119 [3].

1.1.  General Assumptions

   A number of architectural, network, and protocol assumptions underlie
   the call flows in this document.  Note that these assumptions are not
   requirements.  They are outlined in this section so that they may be
   taken into consideration and help understanding of the call flow
   examples.

   These flows do not assume specific underlying transport protocols
   such as TCP, TLS, and UDP.  See the discussion in RFC 3261 [1] for
   details of the transport issues for SIP.

1.2.  Legend for Message Flows

   Dashed lines (---) and slash lines (/, \) represent signaling
   messages that are mandatory to the call scenario.  (X) represents the
   crossover of signaling messages. (->x, x<-) indicate that the packet
   is lost.  The arrow indicates the direction of message flow.  Double
   dashed lines (===) represent media paths between network elements.




Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   Messages are identified in the figures as F1, F2, etc.  These numbers
   are used for references to the message details that follow the
   Figure.  Comments in the message details are shown in the following
   form:

   /* Comments.  */

1.3.  SIP Protocol Assumptions

   This document does not prescribe the flows precisely as they are
   shown, but rather illustrates the principles for best practice.  They
   are best practice usages (orderings, syntax, selection of features
   for the purpose, or handling of errors) of SIP methods, headers and
   parameters.  Note: The flows in this document must not be copied
   as-is by implementors because additional annotations have been
   incorporated into this document for ease of explanation.  To sum up,
   the procedures described in this document represent well-reviewed
   examples of SIP usage, which exemplify best common practice according
   to IETF consensus.

   For reasons of simplicity in reading and editing the document, there
   are a number of differences between some of the examples and actual
   SIP messages.  For instance, Call-IDs are often replicated, CSeq
   often begins at 1, header fields are usually shown in the same order,
   usually only the minimum required header field set is shown, and
   other headers which would usually be included such as Accept, Allow,
   etc. are not shown.

   Actors:

   Element     Display Name  URI                            IP Address
   -------     ------------  ---                            ----------

   User Agent  Alice         sip:alice@atlanta.example.com  192.0.2.101
   User Agent  Bob           sip:bob@biloxi.example.com     192.0.2.201
   User Agent  Carol         sip:carol@chicago.example.com  192.0.2.202
   Proxy Server              ss.atlanta.example.com         192.0.2.111

   The term "session" is used in this document in the same way it is
   used in RFC 3261 [1] sections 13-15.  (Which differs somewhat from
   the definition of the term in RFC 3261.)  RFC 5057 [6] introduces
   another term, "invite dialog usage", which is more precisely defined.
   The term "session" used herein is almost, but not quite, identical to
   the term "invite dialog usage".  The two have differing definitions
   of when the state ends -- the session ends earlier, when BYE is sent
   or received.





Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


2.  The Dialog State Machine for INVITE dialog usage

   Race conditions are generated when the dialog state of the receiving
   side differs from that of the sending side.

   For instance, a race condition occurs when a UAC (User Agent Client)
   sends a CANCEL in the Early state while the UAS (User Agent Server)
   is transitioning from the Early state to the Confirmed state by
   sending a 200 OK to an initial INVITE (indicated as "ini-INVITE"
   hereafter).  The DSM (dialog state machine) for the INVITE dialog
   usage is presented as follows to help understanding of the UA's
   behavior in race conditions.

   The DSM clarifies the UA's behavior by subdividing the dialog state
   shown in RFC 3261 [1] into various internal states.  We call the
   state before the establishment of a dialog the Preparative state.
   The Confirmed state is subdivided into two substates, the Moratorium
   and the Established states, and the Terminated state is subdivided
   into the Mortal and Morgue states.  Messages which are the triggers
   for the state transitions between these states are indicated with
   arrows.  In this figure, messages which are not related to state
   transition are omitted.

   Below are the DSMs, first for the caller and then for the callee.



























Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


    INV +-----------------------------------------------+
    --->|                 Preparative                   |
        +-----------------------------------------------+
          |                    |                      |
          | 3xx-6xx            | 1xx-tag              | 2xx
          |                    |                      |
          |                    |        1xx-tag       |
          |                    V        w/new tag     |
          |         +-----------------+  [new DSM]    |
          | 3xx-6xx |                 |   | (new DSM  |
          +<--------|      Early      |   |  instance |
          |         |                 |<--+  created) |
          |         +-----------------+               |
          |            |             |                |  2xx w/new tag
          |            | BYE         | 2xx            |   [new DSM]
          |            |             +------------>+<-+      | (new DSM
          |            |                           |         |  instance
    +-----C------------C-----+         +-----------C------+  |  created)
    |     | Terminated |     |         | Confirmed |      |  |
    |     |            +<----C---------|           |      |  |
    |     |            |     | BYE(sr) |           |      |  |
    |     |            V     |         |           V      |  |
    | 2xx |  +-----------+   |         |   +-----------+  |  |
    | +---C--|           |---C-+       |   |           |  |  |
    | |   |  |   Mortal  |   | | BYE(r)|   | Moratorium|<-C--+
    | +---C->|           |<--C-+       |   |           |  |
    | ACK |  +-----------+   |         |   +-----------+  |
    |     |    |             |         |         |        |
    |     |    | Timeout     |         |         | ACK    |
    |     |    |             |         |         |        |
    |     V    V             |         |         V        |
    |   +---------------+    |         |   +-----------+  |
    |   |               |    |         |   |           |--C-+
    |   |     Morgue    |    |         |   |Established|  | | 2xx,ACK
    |   |               |    |         |   |           |<-C-+
    |   +---------------+    |         |   +-----------+  |
    |                        |         |                  |
    +------------------------+         +------------------+

    (r): indicates that only reception is allowed.
         Where (r) is not used as an indicator, "response" means
         receive, and "request" means send.
    (sr): indicates that both sending and reception are allowed.

              Figure 1: DSM for INVITE dialog usage (Caller)

   Figure 1 represents the caller's DSM for the INVITE dialog usage.
   The caller MAY send a BYE in the Early state, even though this



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   behavior is NOT RECOMMENDED.  A BYE sent in the Early state
   terminates the early dialog using a specific To tag.  That is, when a
   proxy is performing forking, the BYE is only able to terminate the
   early dialog with a particular UA.  If the caller wants to terminate
   all early dialogs instead of that with a particular UA, it needs to
   send CANCEL, not BYE.  However, it is not illegal to send BYE in the
   Early state to terminate a specific early dialog if this is to the
   caller's intent.  Moreover, until the caller receives a final
   response and terminates the INVITE transaction, the caller MUST be
   prepared to establish a dialog by receiving a new response to the
   INVITE even if it has already sent a CANCEL or BYE and terminated the
   dialog (see Appendix A).







































Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


    INV +-----------------------------------------------+
    --->|                 Preparative                   |
        +-----------------------------------------------+
          |                         |                 |
          | 3xx-6xx                 | 1xx-tag         | 2xx
          |                         |                 |
          |                         V                 |
          |         +------------------+              |
          | 3xx-6xx |                  |              |
          +<--------|      Early       |              |
          |         |                  |              |
          |         +------------------+              |
          |            |             |                |
          |            | BYE         | 2xx            |
          |            |             +------------>+<-+
          |            |                           |
    +-----C------------C-----+         +-----------C------+
    |     | Terminated |     |         | Confirmed |      |
    |     |            +<----C---------|           |      |
    |     |            |     | BYE(sr) |           |      |
    |     |            V     |         |           V      |
    |     | +------------+   |         |   +-----------+  |
    |     | |            |---C-+       |   |           |--C-+
    |     | |   Mortal   |   | | BYE   |   | Moratorium|  | | 2xx
    |     | |            |<--C-+       |   |           |<-C-+ if ACK not
    |     | +------------+   |         |   +-----------+  |   received
    |     |   |              |         |         |        |
    |     |   | Timeout      |         |         | ACK    |
    |     |   |              |         |         |        |
    |     V   V              |         |         V        |
    |   +---------------+    |         |   +-----------+  |
    |   |               |    |         |   |           |  |
    |   |     Morgue    |    |         |   |Established|  |
    |   |               |    |         |   |           |  |
    |   +---------------+    |         |   +-----------+  |
    |                        |         |                  |
    +------------------------+         +------------------+

     (sr): indicates that both sending and reception are allowed.
          Where (sr) is not used as an indicator, "response" means send,
          and "request" means receive.

              Figure 2: DSM for INVITE dialog usage (Callee)

   Figure 2 represents the callee's DSM for the INVITE dialog usage.
   The figure does not illustrate the state transition related to CANCEL
   requests.  A CANCEL request does not cause a dialog state transition.
   However, the callee terminates the dialog and triggers the dialog



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   transition by sending 487 immediately after the reception of the
   CANCEL.  This behavior upon the reception of the CANCEL request is
   further explained in Appendix C.

   The UA's behavior in each state is as follows.

   Preparative (Pre):  The Preparative state is in effect until the
      early dialog is established by sending or receiving a provisional
      response with a To tag after an ini-INVITE is sent or received.
      The dialog does not yet exist in the Preparative state.  If the UA
      sends or receives a 2xx response, the dialog state transitions
      from the Preparative to the Moratorium state, which is a substate
      of the Confirmed state.  In addition, if UA sends or receives a
      3xx-6xx response the dialog state transitions to the Morgue state
      which is a substate of the Terminated state.  Sending an ACK for a
      3xx-6xx response and retransmissions of 3xx-6xx are not shown on
      the DSMs because they are sent by the INVITE transaction.

   Early (Ear):  The early dialog is established by sending or receiving
      a provisional response except 100 Trying.  The early dialog exists
      even though the dialog does not exist in this state yet.  The
      dialog state transitions from the Early to the Moratorium state, a
      substate of the Confirmed state, by sending or receiving a 2xx
      response.  In addition, the dialog state transitions to the Morgue
      state, a substate of the Terminated state, by sending or receiving
      a 3xx-6xx response.  Sending an ACK for a 3xx-6xx response and
      retransmissions of 3xx-6xx are not shown on this DSM because they
      are automatically processed on the transaction layer and don't
      influence the dialog state.  The UAC may send a CANCEL in the
      Early state.  The UAC may also send a BYE (although it is not
      recommended).  The UAS may send a 1xx-6xx response.  The sending
      or receiving of a CANCEL request does not have a direct influence
      on the dialog state.  The UA's behavior upon the reception of the
      CANCEL request is explained further in Appendix C.

   Confirmed (Con):  The sending or receiving of a 2xx final response
      establishes a dialog.  The dialog starts in this state.  The
      Confirmed state transitions to the Mortal state, a substate of the
      Terminated state, by sending or receiving a BYE request.  The
      Confirmed state has two substates, the Moratorium and the
      Established states, which are different with regard to the
      messages that UAs are allowed to send.

   Moratorium (Mora):  The Moratorium state is a substate of the
      Confirmed state and inherits its behavior.  The Moratorium state
      transitions to the Established state by sending or receiving an
      ACK request.  The UAC may send an ACK and the UAS may send a 2xx
      final response.



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   Established (Est):  The Established state is a substate of the
      Confirmed state and inherits its behavior.  Both caller and callee
      may send various messages which influence a dialog.  The caller
      supports the transmission of ACK to the retransmission of a 2xx
      response to an ini-INVITE.

   Terminated (Ter):  The Terminated state is subdivided into two
      substates, the Mortal and Morgue states, to cover the behavior
      when a dialog is being terminated.  In this state, the UA holds
      information about the dialog which is being terminated.

   Mortal (Mort):  The caller and callee enter the Mortal state by
      sending or receiving a BYE.  The UA MUST NOT send any new requests
      within the dialog because there is no dialog.  (Here the new
      requests do not include ACK for 2xx and BYE for 401 or 407 as
      further explained in Appendix D below.)  In the Mortal state, BYE
      can be accepted, and the other messages in the INVITE dialog usage
      are responded with an error.  This addresses the case where BYE is
      sent by both a caller and a callee to exchange reports about the
      session when it is being terminated.  Therefore the UA possesses
      dialog information for internal processing but the dialog
      shouldn't be externally visible.  The UA stops managing its dialog
      state and changes it to the Morgue state, when the BYE transaction
      is terminated.

   Morgue (Morg):  The dialog no longer exists in this state.  The
      sending or receiving of signaling which influences a dialog is not
      performed.  (A dialog is literally terminated.)  The caller and
      callee enter the Morgue state via the termination of the BYE or
      INVITE transaction.


3.  Race Conditions

   This section details a race condition between two SIP UAs, Alice and
   Bob. Alice (sip:alice@atlanta.example.com) and Bob
   (sip:bob@biloxi.example.com) are assumed to be SIP phones or SIP-
   enabled devices.  Only significant signaling is illustrated.  Dialog
   state transitions caused by the sending or receiving of SIP messages
   are shown and race conditions are indicated by '*race*'.  (For
   abbreviations for the dialog state transitions, refer to Section 2.)
   '*race*' indicates the moment when a race condition occurs.

   Examples of race conditions are described below.







Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


3.1.  Receiving message in the Moratorium State

   This section shows some examples of call flow race conditions when
   receiving messages from other states while in the Moratorium state.

3.1.1.  Receiving Initial INVITE retransmission (Preparative state)
        while in the Moratorium state

   State  Alice                               Bob  State
          |                                     |
          |            ini-INVITE F1            |
          |------------------------------------>|
     Pre  |         180 F2(Packet loss)         |  Pre
          |            x<-----------------------|
          |                                     |  Ear
          | ini-INVITE F4(=F1)           200 F3 |
          |------------------     --------------|
          |                   \ /               |  Mora
          |                    X                |
          |                   / \               |
          |<-----------------     ------------->|  *race*
    Mora  |                ACK F5               |
          |------------------------------------>|
     Est  |                                     |  Est
          |                                     |

   This scenario illustrates the race condition which occurs when the
   UAS receives a Preparative message while in the Moratorium state.
   All provisional responses to the initial INVITE (ini-INVITE F1) are
   lost, and the UAC retransmits an ini-INVITE (F4).  At the same time
   as this retransmission, the UAS generates a 200 OK (F3) to the ini-
   INVITE and terminates the INVITE server transaction, according to
   Section 13.3.1.4 of RFC 3261 [1].

   However, it is reported that terminating an INVITE server transaction
   when sending 200 OK is a SIP bug. (http://bugs.sipit.net, #769)
   Therefore, the INVITE server transaction is not terminated by F3, and
   the F4 MUST be handled properly as a retransmission.  (UAs that do
   not deal with this bug still need to recognize the dialog by relying
   on its From tag and Call-ID, and the retransmitted request by relying
   on the CSeq header field value even though it does not match the
   transaction.)

   In RFC 3261 [1], it is not specified whether UAS retransmits 200 to
   the retransmission of ini-INVITE.  Considering the retransmission of
   200 triggered by a timer (the TU keeps retransmitting 200 based on T1
   and T2 until it receives an ACK), according to Section 13.3.1.4 of
   RFC 3261 [1], it seems unnecessary to retransmit 200 when the UAS



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   receives the retransmission of ini-INVITE.  (For implementation, it
   does not matter if the UAS sends the retransmission of 200, since the
   200 does not cause any problem.)


   Message Details

   F1 INVITE Alice -> Bob


   F2 180 Ringing Bob -> Alice

   /* 180 response is lost and does not reach Alice.  */


   F3 200 OK Bob -> Alice

   /* According to Section 13.3.1.4 of RFC 3261 [1], the INVITE server
      transaction is terminated at this point.  However, this has been
      reported as a SIP bug, and the UAS MUST correctly recognize the
      ini-INVITE (F4) as a retransmission.  */


   F4 INVITE (retransmission) Alice -> Bob

   /* F4 is a retransmission of F1.  They are exactly the same INVITE
      request.  For UAs that have not dealt with bug report #769 (an
      INVITE server transaction is terminated when sending 200 to
      INVITE), this request does not match the transaction as well as
      the dialog since it does not have a To tag.  However, Bob must
      recognize the retransmitted INVITE correctly, without treating it
      as a new INVITE.  */


   F5 ACK Alice -> Bob
















Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


3.1.2.  Receiving CANCEL (Early state) when in Moratorium state

   State  Alice                        Bob  State
          |                              |
          |          INVITE F1           |
          |----------------------------->|
     Pre  |       180 Ringing F2         |  Pre
          |<-----------------------------|
     Ear  |                              |  Ear
          |CANCEL F3       200(INVITE) F4|
          |------------     -------------|
          |             \ /              |  Mora
          |              X               |
          |             / \              |
          |<-----------     ------------>|  *race*
    Mora  |                              |
          | ACK F6         200(CANCEL) F5|
          |------------     -------------|
     Est  |             \ /              |
          |              X               |
          |             / \              |
          |<-----------     ------------>|
          |                              |  Est
          |       One Way RTP Media      |
          | (Two Way RTP Media possible) |
          |<=============================|
          |            BYE F7            |
          |----------------------------->|
    Mort  |            200 F8            |  Mort
          |<-----------------------------|
          | ^                          ^ |
          | | Timer K                  | |
          | V                          | |
    Morg  |                    Timer J | |
          |                            V |
          |                              |  Morg
          |                              |

   This scenario illustrates the race condition which occurs when the
   UAS receives an Early message, CANCEL, while in the Moratorium state.
   Alice sends a CANCEL and Bob sends a 200 OK response to the initial
   INVITE message at the same time.  As described in the previous
   section, according to RFC 3261 [1], an INVITE server transaction is
   supposed to be terminated by a 200 response, but this has been
   reported as bug #769.

   This section describes a case in which an INVITE server transaction
   is not terminated by a 200 response to the INVITE request.  In this



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   case, there is an INVITE transaction which the CANCEL request
   matches, so a 200 response to the request is sent.  This 200 response
   simply means that the next hop receives the CANCEL request
   (Successful CANCEL (200) does not mean an INVITE failure).  When a
   UAS has not dealt with bug #769, the UAC MAY receive a 481 response
   to the CANCEL since there is no transaction which the CANCEL request
   matches.  This 481 simply means that there is no matching INVITE
   server transaction and CANCEL is not sent to the next hop.
   Regardless of the success/failure of the CANCEL, Alice checks the
   final response to the INVITE, and if she receives 200 to the INVITE
   request she immediately sends a BYE and terminates the dialog.
   (Section 15, RFC 3261 [1])

   From the time F1 is received by Bob until the time that F8 is sent by
   Bob, media may be flowing one way from Bob to Alice.  From the time
   that an answer is received by Alice from Bob there is the possibility
   that media may flow from Alice to Bob as well.  However, once Alice
   has decided to cancel the call, she presumably will not send media,
   so practically speaking the media stream will remain one way.


   Message Details

   F1 INVITE Alice -> Bob


   F2 180 Ringing Bob -> Alice


   F3 CANCEL Alice -> Bob

   /* Alice sends a CANCEL in the Early state.  */


   F4 200 OK (INVITE) Bob -> Alice

   /* Alice receives a 200 to INVITE (F1) in the Moratorium state.
      Alice has the potential to send as well as receive media, but in
      practice will not send because there is an intent to end the call.
       */


   F5 200 OK (CANCEL) Bob -> Alice

   /* 200 to CANCEL simply means that the CANCEL was received.  The 200
      response is sent, since this case assumes the fix to bug #769 has
      been made.  If an INVITE server transaction is terminated
      according to the procedure stated in RFC 3261 [1], UAC MAY receive



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


      a 481 response instead of 200.  */


   F6 ACK Alice -> Bob

   /* INVITE is successful, and the CANCEL becomes invalid.  Bob
      establishes RTP streams.  However, the next BYE request
      immediately terminates the dialog and session.  */


   F7 BYE Alice -> Bob


   F8 200 OK Bob -> Alice


3.1.3.  Receiving BYE (Early state) while in the Moratorium state

   State  Alice                          Bob  State
          |                                |
          |         ini-INVITE F1          |
          |------------------------------->|
     Pre  |            180 F2              |  Pre
          |<-------------------------------|
     Ear  |                                |  Ear
          |    BYE F4        200(INVITE) F3|
          |-------------     --------------|
    Mort  |              \ /               |  Mora
          |               X                |
          |              / \               |
          |<------------     ------------->|  *race*
          |                                |  Mort
          |    ACK F5         200(BYE) F6  |
          |-------------     --------------|
          |              \ /            ^  |
          |               X             |  |
          |              / \            |  |
          |<------------     ------------->|
          | ^                           |  |
          | | Timer K                   |  |
          | V                           |  |
    Morg  |                     Timer J |  |
          |                             V  |
          |                                |  Morg
          |                                |

   This scenario illustrates the race condition which occurs when UAS
   receives an Early message, BYE, while in the Moratorium state.  Alice



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   sends a BYE in the Early state and Bob sends a 200 OK to the initial
   INVITE request at the same time.  Bob receives the BYE in the
   Confirmed dialog state although Alice sent the request in the Early
   state (As explained in Section 2 and Appendix A, this behavior is NOT
   RECOMMENDED).  When a proxy is performing forking, the BYE is only
   able to terminate the early dialog with a particular UA.  If the
   caller wants to terminate all early dialogs instead of only that with
   a particular UA, it needs to send CANCEL, not BYE.  However, it is
   not illegal to send BYE in the Early state to terminate a specific
   early dialog if that is the caller's intent.

   The BYE functions normally even if it is received after the INVITE
   transaction termination because BYE differs from CANCEL, and is sent
   not to the request but to the dialog.  Alice enters the Mortal state
   on sending the BYE request, and remains Mortal until the Timer K
   timeout occurs.  In the Mortal state, the UAC does not establish a
   session, even though it receives a 200 response to the INVITE.  Even
   so, the UAC sends an ACK to 200 in order to complete of the INVITE
   transaction.  The ACK is always sent to complete the three-way
   handshake of the INVITE transaction (Further explained in Appendix D
   below).


   Message Details

   F1 INVITE Alice -> Bob


   F2 180 Ringing Bob -> Alice


   F3 200 OK (ini-INVITE) Bob -> Alice


   F4 BYE Alice -> Bob

   /* Alice transitions to the Mortal state upon sending BYE.
      Therefore, after this, she does not begin a session even though
      she receives a 200 response with an answer.  */


   F5 ACK Alice -> Bob


   F6 200 OK (BYE) Bob -> Alice






Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


3.1.4.  Receiving re-INVITE (Established state) while in the Moratorium
        state (case 1)

   State  Alice                          Bob  State
          |                                |
          |    ini-INVITE w/offer1 F1      |
          |------------------------------->|
     Pre  |             180 F2             |  Pre
          |<-------------------------------|
     Ear  |                                |  Ear
          |   200(ini-INV) w/answer1 F3    |
          |<-------------------------------|
    Mora  |       ACK F4(packet loss)      |  Mora
          |-------------------->x          |
     Est  |                                |
          | re-INVITE F6      200 F5(=F3)  |
          |   w/offer2         w/answer1   |
          |-------------     --------------|
          |              \ /               |
          |               X                |
          |              / \               |
          |<------------     ------------->|  *race*
          |                  200(re-INV) F8|
          | ACK F7(=F4)        w/answer2   |
          |-------------     --------------|
          |              \ /               |
          |               X                |
          |              / \               |
          |<------------     ------------->|
          |         ACK (re-INV) F9        |  Est
          |------------------------------->|
          |                                |
          |                                |

   This scenario illustrates the race condition which occurs when the
   UAS receives a re-INVITE request sent from the Established state,
   while in the Moratorium state.

   The UAS receives a re-INVITE (w/offer2) before receiving an ACK for
   ini-INVITE (w/offer1).  The UAS sends a 200 OK (w/answer2) to the re-
   INVITE (F8) because it has sent a 200 OK (w/answer1) to the ini-
   INVITE (F3, F5) and the dialog has already been established.
   (Because F5 is a retransmission of F3, SDP negotiation is not
   performed here.)

   If a 200 OK to the ini-INVITE contains an offer and the answer is in
   the ACK, it is recommended that the UA return a 491 to the re-INVITE
   (refer to Section 3.1.5).  (Note: 500 with a Retry-After header may



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   be returned, if the 491 response is understood to indicate request
   collision.  However, 491 is recommended here because 500 applies to
   so many cases that it is difficult to determine what the real problem
   was.)  As can be seen in Section 3.3.2 below, the 491 response seems
   to be closely related to session establishment, even in cases other
   than INVITE cross-over.  This example recommends that 200 be sent
   instead of 491 because it does not have an influence on the session.
   However, a 491 response can also lead to the same outcome, so either
   response can be used.

   Moreover, if UAS doesn't receive an ACK for a long time, it should
   send a BYE and terminate the dialog.  Note that ACK F7 has the same
   CSeq number as ini-INVITE F1 (See Section 13.2.2.4 of RFC 3261 [1]).
   The UA should not reject or drop the ACK on grounds of the CSeq
   number.

   Note: Here is a hint for implementors to avoid race conditions of
   this type.  That is for the caller to delay sending re-INVITE F6 for
   some period of time (2 seconds, perhaps), after which the caller can
   reasonably assume that its ACK has been received.  Implementors can
   decouple the actions of the user (e.g. pressing the hold button) from
   the actions of the protocol (the sending of re-INVITE F6), so that
   the UA can behave like this.  In this case, it is the implementor's
   choice as to how long to wait.  In most cases, such an implementation
   may be useful to prevent the type of race condition shown in this
   section.


   Message Details

   F1 INVITE Alice -> Bob

   INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP client.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
   To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Contact: <sip:alice@client.atlanta.example.com;transport=udp>
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Content-Length: 137

   v=0
   o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 client.atlanta.example.com
   s=-
   c=IN IP4 192.0.2.101
   t=0 0



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   m=audio 49172 RTP/AVP 0
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000

   /* Detailed messages are shown for the sequence to illustrate the
      offer and answer examples.  */


   F2 180 Ringing Bob -> Alice

   SIP/2.0 180 Ringing
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP client.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
   ;received=192.0.2.101
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
   To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Contact: <sip:bob@client.biloxi.example.com;transport=udp>
   Content-Length: 0


   F3 200 OK Bob -> Alice

   SIP/2.0 200 OK
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP client.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
   ;received=192.0.2.101
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
   To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Contact: <sip:bob@client.biloxi.example.com;transport=udp>
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Content-Length: 133

   v=0
   o=bob 2890844527 2890844527 IN IP4 client.biloxi.example.com
   s=-
   c=IN IP4 192.0.2.201
   t=0 0
   m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 0
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000


   F4 ACK Alice -> Bob

   ACK sip:bob@client.biloxi.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP client.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashd8
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   CSeq: 1 ACK
   Content-Length: 0

   /* ACK request is lost.  */


   F5(=F3) 200 OK Bob -> Alice (retransmission)

   /* UAS retransmits a 200 OK to the ini-INVITE since it has not
      received an ACK.  */


   F6 re-INVITE Alice -> Bob

   INVITE sip:sip:bob@client.biloxi.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP client.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf91
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
   To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   CSeq: 2 INVITE
   Content-Length: 147

   v=0
   o=alice 2890844526 2890844527 IN IP4 client.atlanta.example.com
   s=-
   c=IN IP4 192.0.2.101
   t=0 0
   m=audio 49172 RTP/AVP 0
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
   a=sendonly


   F7(=F4) ACK Alice -> Bob (retransmission)

   /* "(=F4)" of ACK F7 shows that it is equivalent to F4 in that it is
      an ACK for F3.  This doesn't mean that F4 and F7 must be equal in
      Via-branch value.  Although it is ambiguous whether Via-branch of
      ACK F7 differs from F4 in RFC3261, it doesn't affect UAS's
      behavior.  */


   F8 200 OK (re-INVITE) Bob -> Alice

   SIP/2.0 200 OK
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP client.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf91



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
   To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   CSeq: 2 INVITE
   Content-Length: 143

   v=0
   o=bob 2890844527 2890844528 IN IP4 client.biloxi.example.com
   s=-
   c=IN IP4 192.0.2.201
   t=0 0
   m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 0
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
   a=recvonly


   F9 ACK (re-INVITE) Alice -> Bob

   ACK sip:sip:bob@client.biloxi.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP client.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK230f21
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
   To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   CSeq: 2 ACK
   Content-Length: 0
























Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


3.1.5.  Receiving re-INVITE (Established state) while in the Moratorium
        state (case 2)

   State  Alice                          Bob  State
          |                                |
          |    ini-INVITE (no offer) F1    |
          |------------------------------->|
     Pre  |             180 F2             |  Pre
          |<-------------------------------|
     Ear  |                                |  Ear
          |    200(ini-INV) w/offer1 F3    |
          |<-------------------------------|
    Mora  |  ACK w/answer1 F4(packet loss) |  Mora
          |-------------------->x          |
     Est  |                                |
          | re-INVITE F6      200 F5(=F3)  |
          |   w/offer2         w/offer1    |
          |-------------     --------------|
          |              \ /               |
          |               X                |
          |              / \               |
          |<------------     ------------->|
          | ACK F7(=F4)      491(re-INV) F8|
          |-------------     --------------|
          |              \ /               |
          |               X                |
          |              / \               |
          |<------------     ------------->|
          |        ACK (re-INV) F9         |  Est
          |------------------------------->|
          |                                |
          |                                |

   This scenario is basically the same as that of Section 3.1.4, but
   differs in sending an offer in the 200 and an answer in the ACK.  In
   contrast to the previous case, the offer in the 200 (F3) and the
   offer in the re-INVITE (F6) collide with each other.

   Bob sends a 491 to the re-INVITE (F6) since he is not able to
   properly handle a new request until he receives an answer.  (Note:
   500 with Retry-After header may be returned, if the 491 response is
   understood to indicate request collision.  However, 491 is
   recommended here because 500 applies to so many cases that it is
   difficult to determine what the real problem was.)  The same result
   will be reached if F6 is an UPDATE with offer.

   Note: As noted in Section 3.1.4, it may be useful for the caller to
   delay sending a re-INVITE F6 for some period of time (2 seconds,



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   perhaps), after which the caller may reasonably assume that its ACK
   has been received, to prevent this type of race condition.


   Message Details

   F1 INVITE Alice -> Bob

   INVITE sip:bob@biloxi.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP client.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
   To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Contact: <sip:alice@client.atlanta.example.com;transport=udp>
   Content-Length: 0

   /* The request does not contain an offer.  Detailed messages are
      shown for the sequence to illustrate offer and answer examples.
       */


   F2 180 Ringing Bob -> Alice


   F3 200 OK Bob -> Alice

   SIP/2.0 200 OK
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP client.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
   ;received=192.0.2.101
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
   To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Contact: <sip:bob@client.biloxi.example.com;transport=udp>
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Content-Length: 133

   v=0
   o=bob 2890844527 2890844527 IN IP4 client.biloxi.example.com
   s=-
   c=IN IP4 192.0.2.201
   t=0 0
   m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 0
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000





Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   /* An offer is made in 200.  */


   F4 ACK Alice -> Bob

   ACK sip:bob@client.biloxi.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP client.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashd8
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
   To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   CSeq: 1 ACK
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Content-Length: 137

   v=0
   o=alice 2890844526 2890844526 IN IP4 client.atlanta.example.com
   s=-
   c=IN IP4 192.0.2.101
   t=0 0
   m=audio 49172 RTP/AVP 0
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000

   /* The request contains an answer, but the request is lost.  */


   F5(=F3) 200 OK Bob -> Alice (retransmission)

   /* UAS retransmits a 200 OK to the ini-INVITE since it has not
      received an ACK.  */


   F6 re-INVITE Alice -> Bob

   INVITE sip:sip:bob@client.biloxi.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP client.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf91
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
   To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   CSeq: 2 INVITE
   Content-Length: 147

   v=0
   o=alice 2890844526 2890844527 IN IP4 client.atlanta.example.com
   s=-
   c=IN IP4 192.0.2.101
   t=0 0



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   m=audio 49172 RTP/AVP 0
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
   a=sendonly

   /* The request contains an offer.  */


   F7(=F4) ACK Alice -> Bob (retransmission)

   /* A retransmission triggered by the reception of a retransmitted
      200. "(=F4)" of ACK F7 shows that it is equivalent to the F4 in
      that it is an ACK for F3.  This doesn't mean that F4 and F7 are
      necessarily equal in Via-branch value.  Although it is ambiguous
      whether Via-branch of ACK F7 differs from F4 in RFC3261, it
      doesn't affect UAS's behavior.  */


   F8 491 (re-INVITE) Bob -> Alice

   /* Bob sends 491 (Request Pending), since Bob has a pending offer.
       */


   F9 ACK (re-INVITE) Alice -> Bob



























Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


3.1.6.  Receiving BYE (Established state) while in the Moratorium state

   State  Alice                     Bob  State
          |                           |
          |         INVITE F1         |
          |-------------------------->|
     Pre  |      180 Ringing F2       |  Pre
          |<--------------------------|
     Ear  |                           |  Ear
          |         200 OK F3         |
          |<--------------------------|
    Mora  |    ACK F4(packet loss)    |  Mora
          |--------------->x          |
     Est  |   Both Way RTP Media      |
          |<=========================>|
          |   BYE F6       200 F5(=F3)|
          |-----------     -----------|
    Mort  |            \ /            |
          |             X             |
          |            / \            |
          |<----------     ---------->|  *race*
          |ACK F7(=F4)     200(BYE) F8|  Mort
          |-----------     -----------|
          |            \ /            |
          |             X             |
          |            / \            |
          |<----------     ---------->|
          | ^                       ^ |
          | | Timer K               | |
          | V                       | |
    Morg  |                 Timer J | |
          |                         V |
          |                           |  Morg
          |                           |

   This scenario illustrates the race condition which occurs when the
   UAS receives an Established message, BYE, while in the Moratorium
   state.  An ACK request for a 200 OK response is lost (or delayed).
   Bob retransmits the 200 OK to the ini-INVITE, and at the same time
   Alice sends a BYE request and terminates the session.  Upon receipt
   of retransmitted 200 OK Alice's UA might be inclined to reestablish
   the session.  But that is wrong - the session should not be
   reestablished when the dialog is in the Mortal state.  Moreover, in
   the case where the UAS sends an offer in a 200 OK, the UAS should not
   start a session again, for the same reason, if the UAS receives a
   retransmitted ACK after receiving a BYE.

   Note: As noted in Section 3.1.4, there is a hint for implementors to



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   avoid race conditions of this type.  That is for the caller to delay
   sending BYE F6 for some period of time (2 seconds, perhaps), after
   which the caller can reasonably assume that its ACK has been
   received.  Implementors can decouple the actions of the user (e.g.
   hanging up) from the actions of the protocol (the sending of BYE F6),
   so that the UA can behave like this.  In this case, it is the
   implementor's choice as to how long to wait.  In most cases, such an
   implementation may be useful to prevent the type of race condition
   shown in this section.


   Message Details

   F1 INVITE Alice -> Bob


   F2 180 Ringing Bob -> Alice


   F3 200 OK Bob -> Alice


   F4 ACK Alice -> Bob

   /* ACK request is lost.  */


   F5(=F3) 200 OK Bob -> Alice

   /* UAS retransmits a 200 OK to the ini-INVITE since it has not
      received an ACK.  */


   F6 BYE Alice -> Bob

   /* Bob retransmits a 200 OK and Alice sends a BYE at the same time.
      Alice transitions to the Mortal state, so she does not begin a
      session after this even though she receives a 200 response to the
      re-INVITE.  */


   F7(=F4) ACK Alice -> Bob

   /* "(=F4)" of ACK F7 shows that it is equivalent to the F4 in that it
      is an ACK for F3.  This doesn't mean that F4 and F7 must be equal
      in Via-branch value.  Although it is ambiguous whether Via-branch
      of ACK F7 differs from F4 in RFC3261, it doesn't affect UAS's
      behavior.  */



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   F8 200 OK (BYE) Bob -> Alice

   /* Bob sends a 200 OK to the BYE.  */


3.2.  Receiving message in the Mortal State

   This section shows some examples of call flow race conditions when
   receiving messages from other states while in the Mortal state.

3.2.1.  Receiving BYE (Established state) while in the Mortal state

   State  Alice                  Bob  State
          |                        |
          |       INVITE F1        |
          |----------------------->|
     Pre  |    180 Ringing F2      |  Pre
          |<-----------------------|
     Ear  |                        |  Ear
          |       200 OK F3        |
          |<-----------------------|
    Mora  |         ACK F4         |  Mora
          |----------------------->|
     Est  |   Both Way RTP Media   |  Est
          |<======================>|
          |                        |
          | BYE F5         BYE F6  |
          |---------     ----------|
    Mort  |          \ /           |  Mort
          |           X            |
          |          / \           |
          |<--------     --------->|  *race*
          |                        |
          | 200 F8         200 F7  |
          |---------     ----------|
          |          \ /           |
          |           X            |
          |          / \           |
          |<--------     --------->|
          | ^                    ^ |
          | | Timer K            | |
          | V                    | |
    Morg  |              Timer J | |
          |                      V |
          |                        |  Morg
          |                        |

   This scenario illustrates the race condition which occurs when the



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   UAS receives an Established message, BYE, while in the Mortal state.
   Alice and Bob send a BYE at the same time.  A dialog and session are
   ended shortly after a BYE request is passed to a client transaction.
   As shown in Section 2, the UA remains in the Mortal state.

   UAs in the Mortal state return error responses to the requests that
   operate within a dialog or session, such as re-INVITE, UPDATE, or
   REFER.  However, the UA shall return 200 OK to the BYE taking the use
   case into consideration where a BYE request is sent by both a caller
   and a callee to exchange reports about the session when it is being
   terminated.  (Since the dialogue and the session both terminate when
   a BYE is sent, the choice of sending a 200 or an error response upon
   receiving a BYE while in the Mortal state does not affect the
   resulting termination.  Therefore, even though this example uses a
   200 response, other responses can also be used.)


   Message Details

   F1 INVITE Alice -> Bob


   F2 180 Ringing Bob -> Alice


   F3 200 OK Bob -> Alice


   F4 ACK Alice -> Bob


   F5 BYE Alice -> Bob

   /* The session is terminated at the moment Alice sends a BYE.  The
      dialog still exists then, but it is certain to be terminated in a
      short period of time.  The dialog is completely terminated when
      the timeout of the BYE request occurs.  */


   F6 BYE Bob -> Alice

   /* Bob has also transmitted a BYE simultaneously with Alice.  Bob
      terminates the session and the dialog.  */


   F7 200 OK Bob -> Alice





Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   /* Since the dialog is in the Moratorium state, Bob responds with a
      200 to the BYE request.  */


   F8 200 OK Alice -> Bob

   /* Since Alice has transitioned from the Established state to the
      Mortal state by sending a BYE, Alice responds with a 200 to the
      BYE request.  */










































Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


3.2.2.  Receiving re-INVITE (Established state) while in the Mortal
        state

    State  Alice                  Bob  State
           |                        |
           |       INVITE F1        |
           |----------------------->|
      Pre  |    180 Ringing F2      |  Pre
           |<-----------------------|
      Ear  |                        |  Ear
           |       200 OK F3        |
           |<-----------------------|
     Mora  |         ACK F4         |  Mora
           |----------------------->|
      Est  |   Both Way RTP Media   |  Est
           |<======================>|
           |                        |
           | BYE F5     re-INVITE F6|
           |---------     ----------|
     Mort  |          \ /           |
           |           X            |
           |          / \           |
   *race*  |<--------     --------->|
           |                        |  Mort
           | 481 F8         200 F7  |
           | (re-INV)       (BYE)   |
           |---------     ----------|
           |          \ /           |^
           |           X            ||
           |          / \           ||Timer J
           |<--------     --------->||
          ^|    ACK (re-INV) F9     ||
          ||<-----------------------||
   Timer K||                        ||
          V|                        ||
     Morg  |                        |V
           |                        |  Morg
           |                        |

   This scenario illustrates the race condition which occurs when the
   UAS receives an Established message, re-INVITE, while in the Mortal
   state.  Bob sends a re-INVITE, and Alice sends a BYE at the same
   time.  The re-INVITE receives a 481 response, since the TU of Alice
   has transitioned from the Established state to the Mortal state by
   sending BYE.  Bob sends an ACK for the 481 response, because the ACK
   for error responses is handled by the transaction layer and at the
   point of receiving the 481 the INVITE client transaction still
   remains (even though the dialog has been terminated).



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 32]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   Message Details

   F1 INVITE Alice -> Bob


   F2 180 Ringing Bob -> Alice


   F3 200 OK Bob -> Alice


   F4 ACK Alice -> Bob


   F5 BYE Alice -> Bob

   /* Alice sends a BYE and terminates the session, and transitions from
      the Established state to the Mortal state.  */


   F6 re-INVITE Bob -> Alice

   /* Alice sends a BYE, and Bob sends a re-INVITE at the same time.
      The dialog state transitions to the Mortal state at the moment
      Alice sends the BYE, but Bob does not know this until he receives
      the BYE.  Therefore, the dialog is in the Terminated state from
      Alice's point of view, but in the Confirmed state from Bob's point
      of view.  A race condition occurs.  */


   F7 200 OK (BYE) Bob -> Alice


   F8 481 Call/Transaction Does Not Exist (re-INVITE) Alice -> Bob

   /* Since Alice is in the Mortal state, she responds with a 481 to the
      re-INVITE.  */


   F9 ACK (re-INVITE) Bob -> Alice

   /* ACK for an error response is handled by Bob's INVITE client
      transaction.  */








Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 33]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


3.2.3.  Receiving 200 OK for re-INVITE (Established state) while in the
        Mortal state

   State  Alice                  Bob  State
          |                        |
          |       INVITE F1        |
          |----------------------->|
     Pre  |    180 Ringing F2      |  Pre
          |<-----------------------|
     Ear  |                        |  Ear
          |       200 OK F3        |
          |<-----------------------|
    Mora  |         ACK F4         |  Mora
          |----------------------->|
     Est  |   Both Way RTP Media   |  Est
          |<======================>|
          |                        |
          |      re-INVITE F5      |
          |<-----------------------|
          | 200 F7         BYE F6  |
          |---------     ----------|
          |          \ /           |  Mort
          |           X            |
          |          / \           |
          |<--------     --------->|  *race*
    Mort  | 200 F8         ACK F9  |
          | (BYE)         (re-INV) |
          |---------     ----------|
          | ^        \ /           |
          | |         X            |
          | |        / \           |
          |<--------     --------->|
          | |                    ^ |
          | |            Timer K | |
          | |                    V |
          | | Timer J              |  Morg
          | V                      |
    Morg  |                        |
          |                        |

   This scenario illustrates the race condition which occurs when the
   UAS receives an Established message, 200 to a re-INVITE, while in the
   Mortal state.  Bob sends a BYE immediately after sending a re-INVITE.
   (For example, in the case of a telephone application, it is possible
   that a user hangs up the phone immediately after refreshing the
   session.)  Bob sends an ACK for a 200 response to INVITE while in the
   Mortal state, completing the INVITE transaction.




Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 34]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   Note: As noted in Section 3.1.4, there is a hint for implementators
   to avoid race conditions of this type.  That is for the UAC to delay
   sending a BYE F6 until the re-INVITE transaction F5 completes.
   Implementors can decouple the actions of the user (e.g. hanging up)
   from the actions of the protocol (the sending of BYE F6), so that the
   UA can behave like this.  In this case, it is the implementor's
   choice as to how long to wait.  In most cases, such an implementation
   may be useful in preventing the type of race condition described in
   this section.


   Message Details

   F1 INVITE Alice -> Bob


   F2 180 Ringing Bob -> Alice


   F3 200 OK Bob -> Alice


   F4 ACK Alice -> Bob


   F5 re-INVITE Bob -> Alice

   INVITE sip:alice@client.atlanta.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP client.biloxi.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashd7
   Session-Expires: 300;refresher=uac
   Supported: timer
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356
   To: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Content-Length: 0

   /* Some detailed messages are shown for the sequence to illustrate
      that the re-INVITE is handled in the usual manner in the Mortal
      state.  */


   F6 BYE Bob -> Alice







Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 35]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   /* Bob sends BYE immediately after sending the re-INVITE.  Bob
      terminates the session and transitions from the Established state
      to the Mortal state.  */


   F7 200 OK (re-INVITE) Alice -> Bob

   SIP/2.0 200 OK
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP client.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashd7
   ;received=192.0.2.201
   Require: timer
   Session-Expires: 300;refresher=uac
   From: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356
   To: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Content-Length: 0

   /* Bob sends BYE, and Alice responds with a 200 OK to the re-INVITE.
      A race condition occurs.  */


   F8 200 OK (BYE) Alice -> Bob


   F9 ACK (re-INVITE) Bob -> Alice

   ACK sip:alice@client.atlanta.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP client.biloxi.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74b44
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356
   To: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   CSeq: 2 ACK
   Content-Length: 0

   /* Bob sends ACK in the Mortal state to complete the three-way
      handshake of the INVITE transaction.  */













Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 36]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


3.2.4.  Receiving ACK (Moratorium state) while in the Mortal state

   State  Alice                          Bob  State
          |                                |
          |         ini-INVITE F1          |
          |------------------------------->|
     Pre  |            180 F2              |  Pre
          |<-------------------------------|
     Ear  |            200 F3              |  Ear
          |<-------------------------------|
    Mora  |                                |  Mora
          |    ACK F4            BYE F5    |
          |-------------     --------------|
     Est  |              \ /               |  Mort
          |               X                |
          |              / \               |
          |<------------     ------------->|  *race*
    Mort  |            200 F6              |
          |------------------------------->|
          | ^                            ^ |
          | |                    Timer K | |
          | |                            V |
          | | Timer J                      |  Morg
          | V                              |
    Morg  |                                |
          |                                |

   This scenario illustrates the race condition which occurs when the
   UAS receives an Established message, ACK to 200, while in the Mortal
   state.  Alice sends an ACK and Bob sends a BYE at the same time.
   When the offer is in a 2xx, and the answer is in an ACK, there is a
   race condition.  A session is not started when the ACK is received
   because Bob has already terminated the session by sending a BYE.  The
   answer in the ACK request is just ignored.

   Note: As noted in Section 3.1.4, there is a hint for implementors to
   avoid race conditions of this type.  Implementors can decouple the
   actions of the user (e.g. hanging up) from the actions of the
   protocol (the sending of BYE F5), so that the UA can behave like
   this.  In this case, it is the implementor's choice as to how long to
   wait.  In most cases, such an implementation may be useful in
   preventing the type of race condition described in this section.


   Message Details

   F1 INVITE Alice -> Bob




Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 37]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   F2 180 Ringing Bob -> Alice


   F3 200 OK Bob -> Alice


   F4 ACK Alice -> Bob

   /* RTP streams are established between Alice and Bob  */


   F5 BYE Alice -> Bob


   F6 200 OK Bob -> Alice

   /* Alice sends a BYE and terminates the session and dialog.  */


3.3.  Other race conditions

   This section shows examples of race conditions that are not directly
   related to dialog state transition.  In SIP, processing functions are
   deployed in three layers, dialog, session, and transaction.  They are
   related each other, but have to be treated separately.  Section 17 of
   RFC 3261 [1] details the processing of transactions.  This draft has
   tried so far to clarify the processing on dialogs.  This section
   explains race conditions which are related to sessions established
   with SIP.

3.3.1.  Re-INVITE crossover

   Alice                         Bob
     |                            |
     |         INVITE F1          |
     |--------------------------->|
     |      180 Ringing F2        |
     |<---------------------------|
     |          200 OK F3         |
     |<---------------------------|
     |           ACK F4           |
     |--------------------------->|
     |     Both Way RTP Media     |
     |<==========================>|
     |                            |
     |re-INVITE F5   re-INVITE F6 |
     |------------   -------------|
     |            \ /             |



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 38]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


     |             X              |
     |            / \             |
     |<-----------   ------------>|
     |   491 F8        491 F7     |
     |------------   -------------|
     |            \ /             |
     |             X              |
     |            / \             |
     |<-----------   ------------>|
     |  ^ ACK F9         ^ ACK F10|
     |--|---------   ----|--------|
     |  |          \ /   |        |
     |  |           X    |        |
     |  |          / \   |        |
     |<-|----------   ---|------->|
     |  |                |        |
     |  |0-2.0 sec       |        |
     |  |                |        |
     |  v  re-INVITE F11(=F6)     |
     |<------------------|--------|
     |     200 OK F12    |        |
     |-------------------|------->|
     |       ACK F13     |        |
     |<------------------|--------|
     |                   |        |
     |                   |2.1-4.0 sec
     |                   |        |
     |re-INVITE F14(=F5) v        |
     |--------------------------->|
     |         200 OK F15         |
     |<---------------------------|
     |          ACK F16           |
     |--------------------------->|
     |                            |
     |                            |

   In this scenario, Alice and Bob send re-INVITE at the same time.
   When two re-INVITEs cross in the same dialog, they are retried, each
   after a different interval, according to Section 14.1, of RFC 3261
   [1].  When Alice sends the re-INVITE and it crosses with Bob's, the
   re-INVITE will be retried after 2.1-4.0 seconds because she owns the
   Call-ID (she generated it).  Bob will retry his INVITE again after
   0.0-2.0 seconds, because Bob isn't the owner of the Call-ID.
   Therefore, each user agent must remember whether it has generated the
   Call-ID of the dialog or not, in case an INVITE may cross with
   another INVITE.

   In this example, Alice's re-INVITE is for session modification and



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 39]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   Bob's re-INVITE is for session refresh.  In this case, after the 491
   responses, Bob retransmits the re-INVITE for session refresh earlier
   than Alice.  If Alice was to retransmit her re-INVITE (that is, if
   she was not the owner of Call-ID), the request would refresh and
   modify the session at the same time.  Then Bob would know that he
   would not need to retransmit his re-INVITE to refresh the session.

   In another instance where two re-INVITEs for session modification,
   cross over, retransmitting the same re-INVITE again after a 491 by
   the Call-ID owner (the UA which retransmits its re-INVITE after the
   other UA) may result in unintended behavior, so the UA must decide if
   the retransmission of the re-INVITE is necessary.  (For example, when
   a call hold and an addition of video media cross over, mere
   retransmission of the re-INVITE at the firing of the timer may result
   in the situation where the video is transmitted immediately after the
   holding of the audio.  This behavior is probably not intended by the
   users.)


   Message Details

   F1 INVITE Alice -> Bob


   F2 180 Ringing Bob -> Alice


   F3 200 OK Bob -> Alice


   F4 ACK Alice -> Bob


   F5 re-INVITE Alice -> Bob

   INVITE sip:sip:bob@client.biloxi.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP client.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
   To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   CSeq: 2 INVITE
   Content-Length: 147

   v=0
   o=alice 2890844526 2890844527 IN IP4 client.atlanta.example.com
   s=-
   c=IN IP4 192.0.2.101



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 40]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   t=0 0
   m=audio 49172 RTP/AVP 0
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
   a=sendonly

   /* Some detailed messages are shown for the sequence to illustrate
      what sort of INVITE requests crossed over each other.  */


   F6 re-INVITE Bob -> Alice

   INVITE sip:alice@client.atlanta.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP client.biloxi.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashd7
   Session-Expires: 300;refresher=uac
   Supported: timer
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356
   To: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Content-Length: 0

   /* A re-INVITE request for a session refresh and another for a call
      hold are sent at the same time.  */


   F7 491 Request Pending Bob -> Alice

   /* Since a re-INVITE is in progress, a 491 response is returned.  */


   F8 491 Request Pending Alice -> Bob


   F9 ACK (INVITE) Alice -> Bob


   F10 ACK (INVITE) Bob -> Alice


   F11 re-INVITE Bob -> Alice

   INVITE sip:alice@client.atlanta.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP client.biloxi.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashd71
   Session-Expires: 300;refresher=uac
   Supported: timer
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 41]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   To: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   CSeq: 2 INVITE
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Content-Length: 133

   v=0
   o=bob 2890844527 2890844527 IN IP4 client.biloxi.example.com
   s=-
   c=IN IP4 192.0.2.201
   t=0 0
   m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 0
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000

   /* Since Bob is not the owner of the Call-ID, he sends a re-INVITE
      again after 0.0-2.0 seconds.  */


   F12 200 OK Alice -> Bob


   F13 ACK Bob -> Alice


   F14 re-INVITE Alice -> Bob

   INVITE sip:sip:bob@client.biloxi.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP client.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf91
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
   To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   CSeq: 3 INVITE
   Content-Length: 147

   v=0
   o=alice 2890844526 2890844527 IN IP4 client.atlanta.example.com
   s=-
   c=IN IP4 192.0.2.101
   t=0 0
   m=audio 49172 RTP/AVP 0
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
   a=sendonly

   /* Since Alice is the owner of the Call-ID, Alice sends a re-INVITE
      again after 2.1-4.0 seconds.  */





Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 42]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   F15 200 OK Bob -> Alice


   F16 ACK Alice -> Bob















































Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 43]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


3.3.2.  UPDATE and re-INVITE crossover

   Alice                         Bob
     |                            |
     |         INVITE F1          |
     |--------------------------->|
     |      180 Ringing F2        |
     |<---------------------------|
     |                            |
     |          200 OK F3         |
     |<---------------------------|
     |           ACK F4           |
     |--------------------------->|
     |     Both Way RTP Media     |
     |<==========================>|
     |                            |
     |  UPDATE F5    re-INVITE F6 |
     |------------   -------------|
     |            \ /             |
     |             X              |
     |            / \             |
     |<-----------   ------------>|
     |   491 F8        491 F7     |
     |   (re-INVITE)   (UPDATE)   |
     |------------   -------------|
     |            \ /             |
     |             X              |
     |            / \             |
     |<-----------   ------------>|
     |  ^       ACK F9   ^        |
     |<-|----------------|--------|
     |  |                |        |
     |  |0-2.0 sec       |        |
     |  |                |        |
     |  v  re-INVITE F10 |        |
     |<------------------|--------|
     |     200 OK F11    |        |
     |-------------------|------->|
     |       ACK F12     |        |
     |<------------------|--------|
     |                   |        |
     |                   |2.1-4.0 sec
     |                   |        |
     |      UPDATE F13   v        |
     |--------------------------->|
     |         200 OK F14         |
     |<---------------------------|
     |                            |



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 44]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


     |                            |

   In this scenario, the UPDATE contains an SDP offer, therefore the
   UPDATE and re-INVITE are both responded to with 491 as in the case of
   "re-INVITE crossover".  When an UPDATE for session refresh which
   doesn't contain a session description and a re-INVITE cross each
   other, both requests succeed with 200 (491 means that a UA has a
   pending request).  The same is true for UPDATE crossover.  In the
   former case where either UPDATE contains a session description the
   requests fail with 491, and in the latter cases succeed with 200.

   Note:
      A 491 response is sent because an SDP offer is pending, and 491 is
      an error which is related to matters that impact the session
      established by SIP.


   Message Details

   F1 INVITE Alice -> Bob


   F2 180 Ringing Bob -> Alice


   F3 200 OK Bob -> Alice


   F4 ACK Alice -> Bob


   F5 UPDATE Alice -> Bob

   UPDATE sip:sip:bob@client.biloxi.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP client.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf9
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
   To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   CSeq: 2 UPDATE
   Content-Length: 147

   v=0
   o=alice 2890844526 2890844527 IN IP4 client.atlanta.example.com
   s=-
   c=IN IP4 192.0.2.101
   t=0 0
   m=audio 49172 RTP/AVP 0



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 45]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
   a=sendonly

   /* Some detailed messages are shown for the sequence to illustrate
      messages crossing over each other.  */


   F6 re-INVITE Bob -> Alice

   INVITE sip:alice@client.atlanta.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP client.biloxi.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashd7
   Session-Expires: 300;refresher=uac
   Supported: timer
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356
   To: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   CSeq: 1 INVITE
   Content-Length: 0

   /* A case where a re-INVITE for a session refresh and a UPDATE for a
      call hold are sent at the same time.  */


   F7 491 Request Pending (UPDATE) Bob -> Alice

   /* Since a re-INVITE is in process, a 491 response is returned.  */


   F8 491 Request Pending (re-INVITE) Alice -> Bob


   F9 ACK (re-INVITE) Alice -> Bob


   F10 re-INVITE Bob -> Alice

   INVITE sip:alice@client.atlanta.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP client.biloxi.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bKnashd71
   Session-Expires: 300;refresher=uac
   Supported: timer
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356
   To: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   CSeq: 2 INVITE
   Content-Type: application/sdp
   Content-Length: 133



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 46]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   v=0
   o=bob 2890844527 2890844527 IN IP4 client.biloxi.example.com
   s=-
   c=IN IP4 192.0.2.201
   t=0 0
   m=audio 3456 RTP/AVP 0
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000

   /* Since Bob is not the owner of the Call-ID, Bob sends an INVITE
      again after 0.0-2.0 seconds.  */


   F11 200 OK Alice -> Bob


   F12 ACK Bob -> Alice


   F13 UPDATE Alice -> Bob

   UPDATE sip:sip:bob@client.biloxi.example.com SIP/2.0
   Via: SIP/2.0/UDP client.atlanta.example.com:5060;branch=z9hG4bK74bf91
   Max-Forwards: 70
   From: Alice <sip:alice@atlanta.example.com>;tag=9fxced76sl
   To: Bob <sip:bob@biloxi.example.com>;tag=8321234356
   Call-ID: 3848276298220188511@atlanta.example.com
   CSeq: 3 UPDATE
   Content-Length: 147

   v=0
   o=alice 2890844526 2890844527 IN IP4 client.atlanta.example.com
   s=-
   c=IN IP4 192.0.2.101
   t=0 0
   m=audio 49172 RTP/AVP 0
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
   a=sendonly

   /* Since Alice is the owner of the Call-ID, Alice sends the UPDATE
      again after 2.1-4.0 seconds.  */


   F14 200 OK Bob -> Alice








Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 47]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


3.3.3.  Receiving REFER (Established state) while in the Mortal state

    State  Alice                  Bob  State
           |                        |
           |       INVITE F1        |
           |----------------------->|
      Pre  |    180 Ringing F2      |  Pre
           |<-----------------------|
      Ear  |                        |  Ear
           |       200 OK F3        |
           |<-----------------------|
     Mora  |         ACK F4         |  Mora
           |----------------------->|
      Est  |   Both Way RTP Media   |  Est
           |<======================>|
           |                        |
           | BYE F5        REFER F6 |
           |---------     ----------|
     Mort  |          \ /           |
           |           X            |
           |          / \           |
   *race*  |<--------     --------->|
           |                        |  Mort
           | 481 F8         200 F7  |
           | (REFER)        (BYE)   |
           |---------     ----------|
           |          \ /         ^ |
           |           X          | |
           |          / \         | |
           |<--------     --------->|
           | ^                    | |
           | | Timer K            | |
           | V            Timer J | |
     Morg  |                      V |
           |                        |  Morg
           |                        |

   This scenario illustrates the race condition which occurs when the
   UAS receives an Established message, REFER, while in the Mortal
   state.  Bob sends a REFER, and Alice sends a BYE at the same time.
   Bob sends the REFER in the same dialog.  Alice's dialog state moves
   to the Mortal state at the point of sending BYE.  In the Mortal
   state, the UA possesses dialog information for an internal process
   but the dialog shouldn't exist outwardly.  Therefore, the UA sends an
   error response to the REFER, which is transmitted as a mid-dialog
   request.  So Alice, in the Mortal state, sends an error response to
   the REFER.  However, Bob has already started the SUBSCRIBE usage with
   REFER, so the dialog continues until the SUBSCRIBE usage terminates,



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 48]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   even though the INVITE dialog usage terminates by receiving BYE.
   Bob's behavior in this case needs to follow the procedures in RFC
   5057 [6].


   Message Details

   F1 INVITE Alice -> Bob


   F2 180 Ringing Bob -> Alice


   F3 200 OK Bob -> Alice


   F4 ACK Alice -> Bob


   F5 BYE Alice -> Bob

   /* Alice sends a BYE request and terminates the session, and
      transitions from the Confirmed state to the Terminated state.  */


   F6 REFER Bob -> Alice

   /* Alice sends a BYE, and Bob sends a REFER at the same time.  Bob
      sends the REFER on the INVITE dialog.  The dialog state
      transitions to the Mortal state at the moment Alice sends the BYE,
      but Bob doesn't know this until he receives the BYE.  A race
      condition occurs.  */


   F7 200 OK (BYE) Bob -> Alice


   F8 481 Call/Transaction Does Not Exist (REFER) Alice -> Bob

   /* Alice in the Mortal state sends a 481 to the REFER.  */


4.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.






Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 49]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


5.  Security Considerations

   This document contains clarifications of behavior specified in RFC
   3261 [1], RFC 3264 [2] and RFC 3515 [4].  The security considerations
   of those documents continue to apply after the application of these
   clarifications.


6.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Robert Sparks, Dean Willis, Cullen
   Jennings, James M. Polk, Gonzalo Camarillo, Kenichi Ogami, Akihiro
   Shimizu, Mayumi Munakata, Yasunori Inagaki, Tadaatsu Kidokoro,
   Kenichi Hiragi, Dale Worley, Vijay K. Gurbani and Anders Kristensen
   for their comments on this document.


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [1]  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.

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

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

   [4]  Sparks, R., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer
        Method", RFC 3515, April 2003.

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

7.2.  Informative References

   [6]  Sparks, R., "Multiple Dialog Usages in the Session Initiation
        Protocol", RFC 5057, November 2007.


Appendix A.  BYE in the Early Dialog

   This section, related to Section 3.1.3, explains why BYE is not
   recommended in the Early state, illustrating a case in which a BYE in



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 50]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   the early dialog triggers confusion.

   Alice            Proxy               Bob   Carol
     |                |                  |      |
     |   INVITE F1    |                  |      |
     |--------------->|    INVITE F2     |      |
     |     100 F3     |----------------->|      |
     |<---------------| 180(To tag=A) F4 |      |
     |    180(A) F5   |<-----------------|      |
     |<---------------|                  |      |
     |                |       INVITE(Fork) F6   |
     |                |------------------------>|
     |                |                100 F7   |
     |    BYE(A) F8   |<------------------------|
     |--------------->|    BYE(A) F9     |      |
     |                |----------------->|      |
     |                |  200(A,BYE) F10  |      |
     | 200(A,BYE) F11 |<-----------------|      |
     |<---------------|  487(A,INV) F12  |      |
     |                |<-----------------|      |
     |                |    ACK(A) F13    |      |
     |                |----------------->|      |
     |                |                  |      |
     |                |                         |
     |                |     200(To tag=B) F13   |
     |   200(B) F14   |<------------------------|
     |<---------------|                         |
     |   ACK(B) F15   |                         |
     |--------------->|            ACK(B) F16   |
     |                |------------------------>|
     |   BYE(B) F17   |                         |
     |--------------->|            BYE(B) F18   |
     |                |------------------------>|
     |                |            200(B) F19   |
     |   200(B) F20   |<------------------------|
     |<---------------|                         |
     |                |                         |
     |                |                         |

   Care is advised in sending BYE in the Early state when forking by a
   proxy is expected.  In this example, the BYE request progresses
   normally, and it succeeds in correctly terminating the dialog with
   Bob. After Bob terminates the dialog by receiving the BYE, he sends a
   487 to the ini-INVITE.  According to Section 15.1.2 of RFC 3261 [1],
   it is RECOMMENDED for the UAS to generate a 487 to any pending
   requests after receiving a BYE.  In the example, Bob sends a 487 to
   the ini-INVITE since he receives the BYE while the ini-INVITE is in
   pending state.



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 51]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   However, Alice receives a final response to the INVITE (a 200 from
   Carol) even though she has successfully terminated the dialog with
   Bob. This means that, regardless of the success/failure of the BYE in
   the Early state, Alice MUST be prepared for the establishment of a
   new dialog until receiving the final response for the INVITE and
   terminating the INVITE transaction.

   It is not illegal to send a BYE in the Early state to terminate a
   specific early dialog - it may satisfy the intent of some callers.
   However, the choice of BYE or CANCEL in the Early state must be made
   carefully.  CANCEL is appropriate when the goal is to abandon the
   call attempt entirely.  BYE is appropriate when the goal is to
   abandon a particular early dialog while allowing the call to be
   completed with other destinations.  When using either BYE or CANCEL
   the UAC must be prepared for the possibility that a call may still be
   established to one (or more) destinations.


Appendix B.  BYE request overlapping with re-INVITE

     UAC                    UAS
      |                      |
   The session has been already established
     ==========================
      |   re-INVITE F1       |
      |--------------------->|
      |   BYE F2             |
      |--------------------->|
      |   200(BYE) F3        |
      |<---------------------|
      |   INVITE F4(=F1)     |
      |--------------------->|
      |                      |
      |                      |

   This case could look similar to the one in Section 3.2.3.  However,
   it is not a race condition.  This case describes the behavior when
   there is no response to the INVITE for some reason.  The appendix
   explains the behavior in this case and its rationale, since this case
   is likely to cause confusion.

   First of all, it is important not to confuse the behavior of the
   transaction layer and that of the dialog layer.  RFC 3261 [1] details
   the transaction layer behavior.  The dialog layer behavior is
   explained in this document.  It has to be noted that these two
   behaviors are independent of each other, even though both layers may
   be triggered to change their states by sending or receiving the same
   SIP messages.  (A dialog can be terminated even though a transaction



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 52]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   still remains, and vice versa.)

   In the sequence above, there is no response to F1, and F2 (BYE) is
   sent immediately after F1 (F1 is a mid-dialog request.  If F1 was an
   ini-INVITE, BYE could not be sent before the UAC received a
   provisional response to the request with a To tag).

   Below is a figure which illustrates the UAC's dialog state and the
   transaction state.

   BYE   INV  dialog UAC                    UAS
                :     |                      |
                :     |                      |
                |     |   re-INVITE F1       |
          o     |     |--------------------->|
          |     |     |   BYE F2             |
    o     |  (Mortal) |--------------------->|
    |     |     |     |   200(BYE) F3        |
    |     |     |     |<---------------------|
    |     |     |     |   INVITE F4(=F1)     |
    |     |     |     |--------------------->|
    |     |     |     |   481(INV) F5        |
    |     |     |     |<---------------------|
    |     |     |     |   ACK(INV) F6        |
    |     |     |     |--------------------->|
    |     |     |     |                      |
    o     |     o     |                      |
          |           |                      |
          o           |                      |
                      |                      |

   For the UAC, the INVITE client transaction begins at the point F1 is
   sent.  The UAC sends BYE (F2) immediately after F1.  This is a
   legitimate behavior.  (Usually the usage of each SIP method is
   independent, for BYE and others.  However, it should be noted that it
   is prohibited to send a request with an SDP offer while the previous
   offer is in progress.)

   After that, F2 triggers the BYE client transaction.  At the same
   time, the dialog state transitions to the Mortal state and then only
   a BYE or a response to a BYE can be handled.

   It is permitted to send F4 (a retransmission of INVITE) in the Mortal
   state, because the retransmission of F1 is handled by the transaction
   layer, and the INVITE transaction has not yet transitioned to the
   Terminated state.  As is mentioned above, the dialog and the
   transaction behave independently each other.  Therefore the
   transaction handling has to be continued even though the dialog has



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 53]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   moved to the Terminated state.

   Note: As noted in Section 3.1.4, there is a hint for implementation
   to avoid this case.  That is for the UAC to delay sending BYE F2
   until the re-INVITE transaction F1 completes.  Implementors can
   decouple the actions of the user (e.g. hanging up) from the actions
   of the protocol (the sending of BYE F2), so that the UA can behave
   like this.  In this case, it is the implementor's choice as to how
   long to wait.  In most cases, such an implementation may be useful to
   prevent this case.

   Next, the UAS's state is shown below.

   UAC                    UAS dialog  INV   BYE
    |                      |     :
    |                      |     :
    |   re-INVITE F1       |     |
    |-------------->x      |     |
    |   BYE F2             |     |
    |--------------------->|     |           o
    |   200(BYE) F3        |  (Mortal)       |
    |<---------------------|     |           |<-Start Timer J
    |   INVITE F4(=F1)     |     |           |
    |--------------------->|     |     o     |
    |   4xx/5xx(INV) F5    |     o     |     o
    |<---------------------|           |
    |   ACK(INV) F6        |           |
    |--------------------->|           |<-Start Timer I
    |                      |           |
    |                      |           |
    |                      |           o
    |                      |

   For the UAS, it can be considered that packet the F1 is lost or
   delayed (here the behavior is explained for the case that the UAS
   receives F2 BYE before F1 INVITE).  Therefore, F2 triggers the BYE
   transaction for UAS, and simultaneously the dialog moves to the
   Mortal state.  Then, upon the reception of F4 the INVITE server
   transaction begins.  (It is permitted to start the INVITE server
   transaction in the Mortal state.  The INVITE server transaction
   begins to handle the received SIP request regardless of the dialog
   state.)  The UAS's TU sends an appropriate error response for the F4
   INVITE, either 481 (because the TU knows that the dialog which
   matches the INVITE is in the Terminated state) or 500 (because the
   re-sent F4 has an out-of-order CSeq).  (It is mentioned above that
   INVITE message F4 (and F1) is a mid-dialog request.  Mid-dialog
   requests have a To tag.  It should be noted that the UAS's TU does
   not begin a new dialog upon the reception of INVITE with a To tag.)



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 54]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


Appendix C.  UA's behavior for CANCEL

   This section explains the CANCEL behaviors which indirectly impact
   the dialog state transition in the Early state.  CANCEL does not have
   any influence on the UAC's dialog state.  However, the request has a
   indirect influence on the dialog state transition because it has a
   significant effect on ini-INVITE.  For the UAS the CANCEL request has
   more direct effects on the dialog than the sending of a CANCEL by the
   UAC, because it can be a trigger to send the 487 response.  Figure 3
   explains UAS's behavior in the Early state.  This flow diagram is
   only an explanatory figure, and the actual dialog state transition is
   as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.

   In the flow, full lines are related to dialog state transition, and
   dotted lines are involved with CANCEL. (r) represents the reception
   of signaling, and (s) means sending.  There is no dialog state for
   CANCEL, but here the Cancelled state is handled virtually just for
   the ease of understanding of the UA's behavior when it sends and
   receives CANCEL.
































Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 55]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


                  +-------------+
                  | Preparative |---+
                  +-------------+   |
                    :   | 1xx(s)    |
                    :   V           |
                    : +-------+     | 2xx(s)
                    : | Early |-----+------+
                    : +-------+            |
                    :     :                V
                    :     :           +-----------+
                    :     :           | Confirmed |<...
                    :.....:           +-----------+   :
                       :                   |  :       :
                       :             BYE(r)|  :       :
                       : CANCEL(r)         |  :.......:
                       V                   |    CANCEL(r)
                   .............           |
                   : Cancelled :           |
                   :...........:           |
                      | 487(s)             |
                      |                    |
                      +--------------------+
                                 |
                                 V
                           +------------+
                           | Terminated |
                           +------------+

                   Figure 3: CANCEL flow diagram for UAS

   There are two behaviors for the UAS depending on the state when it
   receives a CANCEL.

   The first behavior is when the UAS receives a CANCEL in the Early
   state.  In this case the UAS immediately sends a 487 for the INVITE,
   and the dialog transitions to the Terminated state.

   The other is the case in which the UAS receives a CANCEL while in the
   Confirmed state.  In this case the dialog state transition does not
   occur because UAS has already sent a final response to the INVITE to
   which the CANCEL is targeted.  (Note that, because of the UAC's
   behavior, a UAS that receives a CANCEL in the Confirmed state can
   expect to receive a BYE immediately and move to the Terminated state.
   However, the UAS's state does not transition until it actually
   receives a BYE.)






Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 56]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


Appendix D.  Notes on the request in the Mortal state

   This section describes the UA's behavior in the Mortal state, which
   needs careful attention.  Note that every transaction completes
   independently of others, following the principle of RFC 3261 [1].

   In the Mortal state, only a BYE can be accepted, and the other
   messages in the INVITE dialog usage are responded to with an error.
   However, sending of ACK and the authentication procedure for BYE are
   conducted in this state.  (The handling of messages concerning
   multiple dialog usages is out of the scope of this document.  Refer
   to RFC 5057 [6] for further information.)

   ACK for error responses is handled by the transaction layer, so the
   handling is not related to the dialog state.  Unlike the ACK for
   error responses, ACK for 2xx responses is a request newly generated
   by a TU.  However, the ACK for 2xx and the ACK for error responses
   are both a part of the INVITE transaction, even though their handling
   differs (Section 17.1.1.1, RFC 3261 [1]).  Therefore, the INVITE
   transaction is completed by the three-way handshake, which includes
   ACK, even in the Mortal state.

   Considering actual implementation, the UA needs to keep the INVITE
   dialog usage until the Mortal state finishes, so that it is able to
   send ACK for a 2xx response in the Mortal state.  If a 2xx to INVITE
   is received in the Mortal state, the duration of the INVITE dialog
   usage will be extended to 64*T1 seconds after the receiving of the
   2xx, to cope with the possible 2xx retransmission.  (The duration of
   the 2xx retransmission is 64*T1, so the UA needs to be prepared to
   handle the retransmission for this duration.)  However, the UA shall
   send an error response to other requests, since the INVITE dialog
   usage in the Mortal state is kept only for the sending of ACK for
   2xx.

   The BYE authentication procedure shall be processed in the Mortal
   state.  When authentication is requested by a 401 or 407 response,
   UAC resends BYE with appropriate credentials.  Also the UAS handles
   the retransmission of the BYE for which it requested authentication.


Appendix E.  Forking and receiving new To tags

   This section details the behavior of the TU when it receives multiple
   responses with a different To tag to ini-INVITE.

   When an INVITE is forked inside a SIP network, there is a possibility
   that the TU receives multiple responses to the ini-INVITE with
   differing To tags (See Section 12.1, 13.1, 13.2.2.4, 16.7, 19.3, etc.



Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 57]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   of RFC 3261 [1]).  If the TU receives multiple 1xx responses with
   different To tags, the original DSM forks and a new DSM instance is
   created.  As a consequence multiple early dialogs are generated.

   If one of the multiple early dialogs receives a 2xx response, it
   naturally transitions to the Confirmed state.  No DSM state
   transition occurs for the other early dialogs, and their sessions
   (early media) terminate.  The TU of the UAC terminates the INVITE
   transaction after 64*T1 seconds starting at the point of receiving
   the first 2xx response.  Moreover, all mortal early dialogs which do
   not transition to the Established state are terminated (See Section
   13.2.2.4 of RFC 3261 [1]).  By "mortal early dialog" we mean any
   early dialog that the UA will terminate when another early dialog is
   confirmed.

   Below is an example sequence in which two 180 responses with
   different To tags are received, and then a 200 response for one of
   the early dialogs (dialog A) is received.  Dotted lines (..) in the
   sequences are auxiliary lines to represent the influence on dialog B.

                                   UAC
                    dialog(A)       |    INVITE F1
                     Pre o          |------------------------->
                         |          |    100 F2
                         |          |<-------------------------
                         |          |    180(To tag=A) F3
                     Ear |          |<-------------------------
          dialog(B)      |          |
      forked new DSM     |          |    180(To tag=B) F4
          Ear o..........|..........|<-------------------------
              |          |          |
              |          |          |    200(A) F5
   terminate->|.....Mora |..........|<-------------------------
     early    |          | ^        |    ACK(A) F6
      media   |      Est | |        |------------------------->
              |          | |        |
              |          | |64*T1   |
              |          | |(13.2.2.4 of RFC 3261 [1])
              |          | |        |
              |          | |        |
              |          | V        |
              o..........|.(terminate INVITE transaction)
          terminated     |          |
           dialog(B)     |          |
                         |          |

         Figure 4: Receiving 1xx responses with different To tags




Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 58]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   The figure above shows the DSM inside a SIP TU.  Triggered by the
   reception of a provisional response with a different To tag (F4
   180(To tag=B)), the DSM forks and the early dialog B is generated.
   64*T1 seconds later dialog A receives a 200 OK response.  Dialog B,
   which does not transition to the Established state, terminates.

   Next, the behavior of a TU which receives multiple 2xx responses with
   different To tags is explained.  When a mortal early dialog, which
   did not match the first 2xx response that the TU received, receives
   another 2xx response which matches its To tag before the 64*T1 INVITE
   transaction timeout, its DSM transitions to the Confirmed state.
   However, the session on the mortal early dialog is terminated when
   the TU receives the first 2xx to establish a dialog, so no session is
   established for the mortal early dialog.  Therefore, when the mortal
   early dialog receives a 2xx response, the TU sends an ACK and,
   immediately after, the TU usually sends a BYE to terminate the DSM.
   (In special cases, e.g. if a UA intends to establish multiple
   dialogs, the TU may not send the BYE.)

   The handling of the second early dialog after receiving the 200 for
   the first dialog is quite appropriate for a typical device, such as a
   phone.  It is important to note that what is being shown is a typical
   useful action and not the only valid one.  Some devices might want to
   handle things differently.  For instance, a conference focus that has
   sent out an INVITE that forks may want to accept and mix all the
   dialogs it gets.  In that case, no early dialog is treated as mortal.

   Below is an example sequence in which two 180 responses with a
   different To tag are received and then a 200 response for each of the
   early dialogs is received.





















Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 59]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


                                   UAC
                    dialog(A)       |    INVITE F1
                     Pre o          |----------------------->
                         |          |    100 F2
                         |          |<-----------------------
                         |          |    180(To tag=A) F3
         dialog(B)   Ear |          |<-----------------------
     forked new DSM      |          |    180(To tag=B) F4
          Ear o..........|..........|<-----------------------
              |          |          |
              |          |          |    200(A) F5
   terminate->|.....Mora |..........|<-----------------------
     early    |          | ^        |    ACK(A) F6
      media   |      Est | |        |----------------------->
              |          | |64*T1   |
              |          | |        |    200(B) F7
         Mora |..........|.|........|<-----------------------
              |          | |        |    ACK(B) F8
          Est |..........|.|........|----------------------->
              |          | |        |    BYE(B) F9
         Mort |..........|.|........|----------------------->
          ^   |          | |        |    200(B) F10
          |   |          | |        |<-----------------------
          |Timer K       | |        |
          |   |          | V        |
          |   |          | (terminate INVITE transaction)
          V   |          |          |
         Morg o          |          |
                         |          |

     Figure 5: Receiving 1xx and 2xx responses with different To tags

   Below is an example sequence when a TU receives multiple 200
   responses with different To tags before the 64*T1 timeout of the
   INVITE transaction in the absence of a provisional response.  Even
   though a TU does not receive a provisional response, the TU needs to
   process the 2xx responses (See Section 13.2.2.4 of RFC 3261 [1]).  In
   that case, the DSM state is forked at the Confirmed state, and then
   the TU sends an ACK for the 2xx response and, immediately after, the
   TU usually sends a BYE.  (In special cases, e.g. if a UA intends to
   establish multiple dialogs, the TU may not send the BYE.)










Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 60]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


                                 UAC
                  dialog(A)       |    INVITE F1
                   Pre o          |----------------------->
                       |          |    100 F2
                       |          |<-----------------------
                       |          |    180(To tag=A) F3
                   Ear |          |<-----------------------
                       |          |
                       |          |    200(A) F4
                  Mora |..........|<-----------------------
                       | ^        |    ACK(A) F5
                   Est | |        |----------------------->
                       | |        |
       dialog(B)       | |64*T1   |
   forked new DSM      | |        |    200(To tag=B) F6
       Mora o..........|.|........|<-----------------------
            |          | |        |    ACK(B) F7
        Est |..........|.|........|----------------------->
            |          | |        |    BYE(B) F8
       Mort |..........|.|........|----------------------->
        ^   |          | |        |    200(B) F9
        |   |          | |        |<-----------------------
        |   |          | V        |
        |Timer K       | (terminate INVITE transaction)
        |   |          |          |
        V   |          |          |
       Morg o          |          |
                       |          |

         Figure 6: Receiving 2xx responses with different To tags

   Below is an example sequence in which the option tag 100rel (RFC 3262
   [5]) is required by a 180.

   If a forking proxy supports 100rel, it transparently transmits to the
   UAC a provisional response which contains a Require header with the
   value of 100rel.  Upon receiving a provisional response with 100rel,
   the UAC establishes the early dialog (B) and sends PRACK.  (Here,
   also, every transaction completes independently of others.)

   As in Figure 4, the early dialog (B) terminates at the same time the
   INVITE transaction terminates.  In the case where a proxy does not
   support 100rel, the provisional response will be handled in the usual
   way (a provisional response with 100rel is discarded by the proxy,
   not to be transmitted to the UAC).






Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 61]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


                                UAC
                 dialog(A)       |    INVITE F1
                  Pre o          |------------------------->
                      |          |    100 F2
                      |          |<-------------------------
                      |          |    180(To tag=A) F3
                  Ear |          |<-------------------------
                      |          |    200(A) F4
                 Mora |..........|<-------------------------
                      | ^        |    ACK(A) F5
                  Est | |        |------------------------->
       dialog(B)      | |        |
   forked new DSM     | |        |    180(To tag=B) w/100rel F6
       Ear o..........|.|........|<-------------------------
           |          | |        |    PRACK(B) F7
           |          | |        |------------------------->
           |          | |        |    200(B,PRACK) F8
           |          | |        |<-------------------------
           |          | |64*T1   |
           |          | |(13.2.2.4 of RFC 3261 [1])
           |          | |        |
           |          | |        |
           |          | |        |
           |          | V        |
           o..........|.(terminate INVITE transaction)
       terminated     |          |
        dialog(B)     |          |
                      |          |

         Figure 7: Receiving 1xx responses with different To tags
   when using the mechanism for reliable provisional responses (100rel)


Authors' Addresses

   Miki Hasebe
   NTT-east Corporation
   19-2 Nishi-shinjuku 3-chome
   Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo  163-8019
   JP

   Email: hasebe.miki@east.ntt.co.jp









Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 62]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


   Jun Koshiko
   NTT-east Corporation
   19-2 Nishi-shinjuku 3-chome
   Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo  163-8019
   JP

   Email: j.koshiko@east.ntt.co.jp


   Yasushi Suzuki
   NTT Corporation
   9-11, Midori-cho 3-Chome
   Musashino-shi, Tokyo  180-8585
   JP

   Email: suzuki.yasushi@lab.ntt.co.jp


   Tomoyuki Yoshikawa
   NTT-east Corporation
   19-2 Nishi-shinjuku 3-chome
   Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo  163-8019
   JP

   Email: tomoyuki.yoshikawa@east.ntt.co.jp


   Paul H. Kyzivat
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   1414 Massachusetts Avenue
   Boxborough, MA  01719
   US

   Email: pkyzivat@cisco.com

















Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 63]

Internet-Draft   Example calls flows of race conditions    February 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   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.

   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, THE IETF TRUST 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.


Intellectual Property

   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.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Hasebe, et al.           Expires August 21, 2008               [Page 64]


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