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

Versions: (draft-sawada-sipping-sip-offeranswer) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 RFC 6337

Sipping                                                       P. Kyzivat
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Informational                                 T. Sawada
Expires: September 9, 2010                              KDDI Corporation
                                                           March 8, 2010


   SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) Usage of the Offer/Answer Model
                 draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer-12

Abstract

   The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) utilizes the offer/answer model
   to establish and update multimedia sessions using the Session
   Description Protocol (SDP).  The description of the offer/answer
   model in SIP is dispersed across multiple RFCs.  This document
   summarizes all the current usages of the offer/answer model in SIP
   communication.

Status of this Memo

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

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

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2010.

Copyright Notice

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

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal



Kyzivat & Sawada        Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model        March 2010


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


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Summary of SIP usage of the Offer/Answer Model . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1.  Offer/Answer Exchange Pairs in SIP Messages  . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  Rejection of an Offer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.3.  Session Description which is not Offer nor Answer  . . . .  6
   3.  Detailed Discussion of the Offer/Answer Model for SIP  . . . .  7
     3.1.  Offer/Answer for the INVITE method with 100rel
           extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.1.1.  INVITE Request with SDP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.1.2.  INVITE request without SDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.2.  Offer/Answer Exchange in Early Dialog  . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.3.  Offer/Answer Exchange in an Established Dialog . . . . . . 11
     3.4.  Recovering From a Failed ReINVITE  . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   4.  Exceptional Case Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.1.  Message Crossing Case Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.2.  Glare Case Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   5.  Content of Offers and Answers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.1.  General Principle for Constructing Offers and Answers  . . 16
     5.2.  Choice of Media Types and Formats to Include and
           Exclude  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       5.2.1.  Sending an Initial INVITE with Offer . . . . . . . . . 16
       5.2.2.  Responding with an Offer when the Initial INVITE
               has no Offer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       5.2.3.  Answering an Initial INVITE with Offer . . . . . . . . 17
       5.2.4.  Answering when the Initial INVITE had no Offer . . . . 18
       5.2.5.  Subsequent Offers and Answers  . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     5.3.  Hold and Resume of media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     5.4.  Behavior on receiving SDP with c=0.0.0.0 . . . . . . . . . 20
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   8.  Acknowledgement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22



Kyzivat & Sawada        Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model        March 2010


1.  Introduction

   SIP utilizes the offer/answer model to establish and update sessions.
   The rules to govern the offer/answer behaviors in SIP are described
   in the several RFCs.  ([RFC3261], [RFC3262], [RFC3264], [RFC3311],
   and [I-D.camarillo-sipcore-reinvite].)

   The primary purpose of this document is to describe all forms of SIP
   usage of the offer/answer model in one document to help the readers
   to fully understand it.  Also, this document tries to incorporate the
   results of the discussions on the controversial issues to avoid
   repeating the same discussions later.

   This document does not make normative changes.  Rather, it recommends
   how to use the existing standards to best effect.

1.1.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
   This document only uses these key words when referencing normative
   statements in existing RFCs.


2.  Summary of SIP usage of the Offer/Answer Model

   The offer/answer model itself is independent from the higher layer
   application protocols which utilize it.  SIP is one of the
   applications using the offer/answer model.  [RFC3264] defines the
   offer/answer model, but does not specify which SIP messages should
   convey an offer or an answer.  This should be defined in the SIP core
   and extensions RFCs.

   In theory, any SIP message can include a session description in its
   body.  But a session description in a SIP message is not necessarily
   an offer or an answer.  Only certain session description usages that
   conform to the rules described in standards-track RFCs can be
   interpreted as an offer or an answer.  The rules for how to handle
   the offer/answer model are defined in several RFCs.

   The offer/answer model defines a mechanism for update of sessions.
   In SIP, a dialog is used to associate an offer/answer exchange with
   the session which it is to update.  In other words, only the offer/
   answer exchange in the SIP dialog can update the session which is
   managed by that dialog.





Kyzivat & Sawada        Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model        March 2010


2.1.  Offer/Answer Exchange Pairs in SIP Messages

   Currently, the rules on the offer/answer model are defined in
   [RFC3261], [RFC3262], [RFC3264], [RFC3311] and
   [I-D.camarillo-sipcore-reinvite].  In these RFCs, only the six
   patterns shown in Table 1 are defined for exchanging an offer and an
   answer with SIP messages.

   Note that an offer/answer exchange initiated by an INVITE request
   must follow exactly one of the patterns 1, 2, 3, 4.  When an initial
   INVITE causes multiple dialogs due to forking, an offer/answer
   exchange is carried out independently in each distinct dialog.  When
   an INVITE request contains no offer, only pattern 2 or pattern 4
   apply.  'The first reliable non-failure message' must have an offer
   if there is no offer in the INVITE request.  This means that UA which
   receives the INVITE request without an offer must include an offer in
   the first reliable response with 100rel extension.  If no reliable
   provisional response has been sent, the UAS must include an offer
   when sending 2xx response.

   In pattern 3, the first reliable provisional response may or may not
   have an answer.  When a reliable provisional response contains a
   session description, and is the first to do so, then that session
   description is the answer to the offer in the INVITE request.  The
   answer can not be updated, and a new offer can not be sent in a
   subsequent reliable response for the same INVITE transaction.

   In pattern 5, a PRACK request can contain an offer only if the
   reliable response which it acknowledges contains an answer to the
   previous offer/answer exchange.

      NOTE: It is legal to have UPDATE/2xx exchanges without offer/
      answer exchanges (pattern 6).  However when re-INVITEs are sent
      for non-offer/answer purposes, an offer/answer exchange is
      required.  In that case the prior SDP will typically be repeated.

   There may be ONLY ONE offer/answer negotiation in progress for a
   single dialog at any point in time.  Section 4 explains how to ensure
   this.  When an INVITE results in multiple dialogs each has a separate
   offer/answer negotiation.

      NOTE: This is when using a Content-Disposition of "session".
      There may be a second offer/answer negotiation in progress using a
      Content-Disposition of "early-session" [RFC3959].  That is not
      addressed by this draft.






Kyzivat & Sawada        Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model        March 2010


            Offer                Answer             RFC    Ini Est Early
     -------------------------------------------------------------------
     1. INVITE Req.          2xx INVITE Resp.     RFC 3261  Y   Y    N
     2. 2xx INVITE Resp.     ACK Req.             RFC 3261  Y   Y    N
     3. INVITE Req.          1xx-rel INVITE Resp. RFC 3262  Y   Y    N
     4. 1xx-rel INVITE Resp. PRACK Req.           RFC 3262  Y   Y    N
     5. PRACK Req.           200 PRACK Resp.      RFC 3262  N   Y    Y
     6. UPDATE Req.          2xx UPDATE Resp.     RFC 3311  N   Y    Y

          Table 1. Summary of SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model

   In Table 1, '1xx-rel' corresponds to the reliable provisional
   response which contains the 100rel option defined in [RFC3262].

   The 'Ini' column shows the ability to exchange the offer/answer to
   initiate the session.  'Y' indicates that the pattern can be used in
   the initial offer/answer exchange, while 'N' indicates that it can
   not.  Only the initial INVITE transaction can be used to exchange the
   offer/answer to establish a multimedia session.

   The 'Est' column shows the ability to update the established session.

   The 'Early' column indicates which patterns may be used to modify the
   established session in an early dialog.  There are two ways to
   exchange a subsequent offer/answer in an early dialog.

2.2.  Rejection of an Offer

   It is not always clear how to reject an offer when it is
   unacceptable, and some methods do not allow explicit rejection of an
   offer.  For each of the patterns in Table 1, Table 2 shows how to
   reject an offer.

   When a UA receives an INVITE request with an unacceptable offer, it
   should respond with a 488 response, preferably with Warning header
   field indicating the reason of the rejection, unless another response
   code is more appropriate to reject it.  (Pattern 1 and Pattern 3.)

   If this is a reINVITE extra care must be taken, as detailed in
   [I-D.camarillo-sipcore-reinvite].  Specifically, if the offer
   contains any changes or additions to media stream properties, and
   those have already been used to transmit/receive media before the
   final response is sent, then a 2xx response should be sent, with a
   syntactically correct response.  This may optionally be followed by
   an UPDATE request to rearrange the session parameters if both ends
   support the UPDATE method.  Alternatively the UA may terminate the
   dialog and send an error response to the INVITE request.




Kyzivat & Sawada        Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model        March 2010


   When a UA receives an UPDATE request with an offer which it can not
   accept, it should respond with a 488 response preferably with Warning
   header field indicating the reason of the rejection, unless another
   response code is more appropriate to reject it.  (Pattern 6)

   When a UA receives a PRACK request with an offer which it can not
   accept, it may respond with a 200 response with a syntactically
   correct session description.  This may optionally be followed by an
   UPDATE request to rearrange the session parameters if both ends
   support the UPDATE method.  Alternatively the UA may terminate the
   dialog and send an error response to the INVITE request.  (Pattern 5)
   (While it may be tempting to respond with a 488 response in this
   case, that is not recommended, because it does not acknowledge the
   response.)

   When a UA receives a response with an offer which it can not accept,
   the UA does not have a way to reject it explicitly.  Therefore, a UA
   should respond to the offer with the correct session description and
   rearrange the session parameters by initiating a new offer/answer
   exchange, or alternatively terminate the session.  (Pattern 2 and
   Pattern 4) When initiating a new offer/answer, a UA should take care
   not to cause an infinite offer/answer loop.

        Offer                Rejection
     -----------------------------------------------------
     1. INVITE Req. (*)      488 INVITE Response
     2. 2xx INVITE Resp.     Answer in ACK Req. followed by new offer
                             OR termination of dialog
     3. INVITE Req.          488 INVITE Response (same as Pattern 1.)
     4. 1xx-rel INVITE Resp. Answer in PRACK Req. followed by new offer
     5. PRACK Req. (**)       200 PRACK Resp. followed by new offer
                             OR termination of dialog
     6. UPDATE Req.          488 UPDATE Response

   (*) If this was a reINVITE, a failure response should not be sent if
   media has already been exchanged using the new offer.

   (**) A UA should only use PRACK to send an offer when it has strong
   reasons to expect the receiver will accept the offer.

                      Table 2. Rejection of an Offer

2.3.  Session Description which is not Offer nor Answer

   As previously stated, a session description in a SIP message is not
   necessarily an offer or an answer.  For example, SIP can use a
   session description to describe capabilities apart from offer/answer
   exchange.  Examples of this are 200 OK responses for OPTIONS and 488



Kyzivat & Sawada        Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model        March 2010


   responses for INVITE.


3.  Detailed Discussion of the Offer/Answer Model for SIP

3.1.  Offer/Answer for the INVITE method with 100rel extension

   The INVITE method provides the basic procedure for offer/answer
   exchange in SIP.  Without the 100rel option, the rules are simple as
   described in [RFC3261].  If an INVITE request includes a session
   description, pattern 1 is applied and if an INVITE request does not
   include a session description, pattern 2 is applied.

   With 100rel, pattern 3 and pattern 4 are added and this complicates
   the rules.  An INVITE request may cause multiple responses.  Note
   that even if both UAs support the 100rel extension, not all the
   provisional responses may be sent reliably.  Note also that a
   reliable provisional response is allowed without a session
   description if the UAS does not wish to send the answer yet.  An
   unreliable provisional response may include a session description in
   the body if the UAS has not sent a reliable response, but its session
   description is neither an offer nor an answer.  All the session
   descriptions in the unreliable responses to the INVITE request must
   be identical to the answer which is included in the reliable
   response.  A session description in an unreliable response that
   precedes a reliable response can be considered a "preview" of the
   answer that will be coming, and hence may be treated like an answer
   until the actual one arrives.

      NOTE: This "preview" session description rule applies to a single
      offer/answer exchange.  In parallel offer/answer exchanges (caused
      by forking) a UA may obviously receive a different "preview" of an
      answer in each dialog.  UAs are expected to deal with this.

   Although RFC 3261 says a UA should accept media once an INVITE with
   an offer has been sent, in many cases, an answer (or, at least a
   preview of it) is required in order for media to be accepted.  Two
   examples of why this might be required are:

   o  To avoid receiving media from undesired sources, some User Agents
      assume symmetric RTP will be used, ignore all incoming media
      packets until an address/port has been received from the other
      end, and then use that address/port to filter incoming media
      packets.

   o  In some networks, an intermediate node must authorize a media
      stream before it can flow and requires a confirming answer to the
      offer before doing so.



Kyzivat & Sawada        Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model        March 2010


   Therefore, a UAS should send an SDP answer reliably (if possible)
   before it starts sending media.  And, if neither the UAC nor the UAS
   support 100rel, the UAS should send a preview of the answer before it
   starts sending media.

3.1.1.  INVITE Request with SDP

   When a UAC includes an SDP body in the INVITE request as an offer, it
   expects the answer to be received with one of the reliable responses.
   Other than that, no offer/answer exchanges can occur in the messages
   within the INVITE transaction.

      UAC                   UAS
       | F1  INVITE (SDP)    | <- The offer in the offer/answer model
       |-------------------->|
       | F2     1xx (SDP)    | <- The offer/answer exchange is not
       |<--------------------|    closed yet, but UAC acts as if it
       |                     | ^  receives the answer.
       | F3 1xx-rel (no SDP) | |<- a 1xx-rel may be sent without answer
       |<--------------------| |   SDP.
       | F4   PRACK (no SDP) | |
       |-------------------->| | UAC must not send a new offer.
       | F5 2xx PRA (no SDP) | |
       |<--------------------| v
       |                     |
       | F6 1xx-rel (SDP)    | <- The answer in the offer/ answer model
       |<--------------------| -
       | F7   PRACK          | | UAC can send a new offer in a PRACK
       |-------------------->| | request to acknowledge F6.
       | F8 2xx PRA          | | After F7 UAC and UAS can send a new
       |<--------------------| v offer in an UPDATE request.
       |                     |
       | F9 1xx-rel          | <- SDP should not be included in the
       |<--------------------|    subsequent 1xx-rel once offer/answer
       | F10  PRACK          |    has been completed.
       |-------------------->|
       | F11 2xx PRA         |
       |<--------------------|
       |                     |
       | F12 2xx INV         | <- SDP should not be included in the
       |<--------------------|    final response once offer/answer has
       | F13    ACK          |    been completed.
       |-------------------->|

        Figure 1 Example of Offer/Answer with 100rel Extension (1)

   For example, in Figure 1, only the SDP in F6 is the answer.  The SDP
   in the non-reliable response (F2) is the preview of the answer and



Kyzivat & Sawada        Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model        March 2010


   must be the same as the answer in F6.  Receiving F2, the UAC should
   act as if it receives the answer.  However, offer/answer exchange is
   not completed yet and the UAC must not send a new offer until it
   receives the same SDP in the first reliable response, which is the
   real answer.  After sending the SDP in F6, the UAS must prepare to
   receive a new offer from the UAC with an UPDATE request or a PRACK
   request.

   The UAS does not include SDP in responses F9 and F12.  However, the
   UAC should prepare to receive SDP bodies in F9 and/or F12, and just
   ignore them, to handle a peer that does not conform to the
   recommended implementation.

3.1.2.  INVITE request without SDP

   When a UAC does not include an SDP body in the INVITE request, it
   expects the offer to be received with the first reliable response.
   The UAC will send the answer in the request to acknowledge the
   response, i.e.  PRACK or ACK request of the reliable response.  Other
   than that, no offer/answer exchanges can occur in the messages within
   the INVITE transaction.

      NOTE: The UAS should not include SDP in the responses F6 and F9.
      However, the UAC should prepare to receive SDP bodies in F6 and/or
      F9, and just ignore them to handle a peer that does not conform to
      the recommended implementation.

























Kyzivat & Sawada        Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model        March 2010


      UAC                   UAS
       | F1  INVITE (no SDP) |
       |-------------------->|
       | F2     1xx          |
       |<--------------------|
       |                     |
       | F3 1xx-rel (SDP)    | <- The first 1xx-rel must contain SDP
       |<--------------------|    as the offer.
       | F4   PRACK (SDP)    | <- A PRACK request to the first 1xx-rel
       |-------------------->|    must contain SDP as the answer.
       | F5 2xx PRA (no SDP) | -
       |<--------------------| |
       |                     | |
       | F6 1xx-rel (no SDP) | <- The subsequent 1xx-rel should not
       |<--------------------| |  contain SDP.
       | F7   PRACK          | |
       |-------------------->| | UAC can send a new offer in an UPDATE
       | F8 2xx PRA          | | request after F4.
       |<--------------------| v
       |                     |
       | F9 2xx INV (no SDP) | <- The final response should not
       |<--------------------|    contain SDP.
       | F10    ACK          |
       |-------------------->|

        Figure 2 Example of Offer/Answer with 100rel Extension (2)

   Note that in the case that the UAC needs to prompt the user to accept
   or reject the offer, the reliable provisional response with SDP as an
   offer (pattern 4) can result in the retransmission until the PRACK
   request can be sent.  The UAC should take care to avoid this
   situation when it sends the INVITE request without SDP.

3.2.  Offer/Answer Exchange in Early Dialog

   When both UAs support the 100rel extension, they can update the
   session in the early dialog once the first offer/answer exchange has
   been completed.

   From a UA sending an INVITE request:

   A UA can send an UPDATE request with a new offer if both ends support
   the UPDATE method.  Note that if the UAS needs to prompt the user to
   accept or reject the offer, the delay can result in retransmission of
   the UPDATE request.

   A UA can send a PRACK request with a new offer only when
   acknowledging the reliable provisional response carrying the answer



Kyzivat & Sawada        Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model        March 2010


   to an offer in the INVITE request.  Compared to using the UPDATE
   method, using PRACK can reduce the number of messages exchanged
   between the UAs.  However, to avoid problems or delays caused by
   PRACK offer rejection, the UA is recommended to send a PRACK request
   only when it has strong reasons to expect the receiver will accept
   it.  For example, the procedure used in precondition extension
   [RFC3312] is a case where a PRACK request should be used for updating
   the session status in an early dialog.  Note also that if a UAS needs
   to prompt the user to accept or reject the offer, the delay can
   result in retransmission of the PRACK request.

   From a UA receiving an INVITE request:

   A UA can send an UPDATE request with a new offer if both ends support
   the UPDATE method.  A UAS can not send a new offer in the reliable
   provisional response, so the UPDATE method is the only method for a
   UAS to update an early session.

3.3.  Offer/Answer Exchange in an Established Dialog

   Both the re-INVITE and UPDATE methods can be used in an established
   dialog to update the session.

   The UPDATE method is simpler and can save at least one message
   compared with the INVITE method.  But both ends must support the
   UPDATE method for it to be used.

   The INVITE method needs at least three messages to complete but no
   extensions are needed.  Additionally, the INVITE method allows the
   peer to take time to decide whether it will accept a session update
   or not by sending provisional responses.  That is, re-INVITE allows
   the UAS to interact with the user at the peer, while UPDATE needs to
   be answered automatically by the UAS.  It is noted that re-INVITE
   should be answered immediately unless such a user interaction is
   needed.  Otherwise, some 3pcc flows will break.

3.4.  Recovering From a Failed ReINVITE

   If a reINVITE fails, the session parameters in effect prior to the
   reINVITE MUST remain unchanged, as if no re-INVITE had been issued.
   ([RFC3261] section 14.1.)  This remains the case even if multiple
   offer/answer exchanges have occurred between the sending of the
   reINVITE and its failure, and even if media has been exchanged using
   the proposed changes in the session.  Because this can be difficult
   to achieve in practice, newer specifications call for the UAS to send
   a 2xx response to a reINVITE in cases where rolling back changes
   would be problematic.




Kyzivat & Sawada        Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model        March 2010


   Nevertheless, a UAC may receive a failure response to a reINVITE
   after proposed changes that must be rolled back have already been
   used.  In such a case, the UAC should send an UPDATE offering the SDP
   that has been reinstated.  (See [I-D.camarillo-sipcore-reinvite] for
   details.)


4.  Exceptional Case Handling

   In [RFC3264], the following restrictions are defined with regard to
   sending a new offer.

      "At any time, either agent MAY generate a new offer that updates
      the session.  However, it MUST NOT generate a new offer if it has
      received an offer which it has not yet answered or rejected.  It
      MUST NOT generate a new offer if it has generated a prior offer
      for which it has not yet received an answer or a rejection."

   Assuming that the above rules are guaranteed, there seem to be two
   possible 'exceptional' cases to be considered in SIP offer/answer
   usage: the 'message crossing' case, and the 'glare' case.  One of the
   reasons why the usage of SIP methods to exchange offer/answer needs
   to be carefully restricted in the RFCs is to ensure that the UA can
   detect and handle appropriately the 'exceptional' cases to avoid
   incompatible behavior.

4.1.  Message Crossing Case Handling

   When message packets cross in the transport network, an offer may be
   received before the answer for the previous offer/answer exchange, as
   shown in Figure 3.  In such a case, UA A must detect that the session
   description SDP-2 is not the answer to offer1.


         A                  B
         |SDP-1     (offer1)|
      M1 |----------------->|
         |SDP-2    (answer1)|
      M2 |<------\  /-------|
         |        \/        |
         |SDP-3   /\(offer2)|
      M3 |<------/  \-------|

                      Figure 3 Message Crossing Case

   Because of the restrictions on placement of offers and answers
   (summarized in Table 1) there are a limited number of valid exchanges
   of messages that may lead to this message crossing case.  These are



Kyzivat & Sawada        Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model        March 2010


   enumerated in Table 3.  (This table only shows messages containing
   offers or answers.  There could be other messages, without session
   descriptions, which are not shown.)

   There are variants, shown in Figures 4a and 4b, which are dependent
   on an INVITE (Mx) that contains no offer.  These are also included in
   Table 3.

         A                               B
         |                               |
         |SDP-1              offer1(UPD) |
      M1 |==============================>|
         |re-INV              (no offer) |
      Mx |------------------------------>| --+
         |SDP-2         answer1 (2xx-UPD)|   |
      M2 |<===========\  /===============|   | first reliable
         |             \/          offer2|   | response
         |SDP-3        /\   (1xx-rel/2xx)|   |
      M3 |<===========/  \===============| <-+
         |SDP-4       answer2 (PRACK/ACK)|
      My |------------------------------>|
         |                               |

                Figure 4a Avoidable message crossing cases


         A                               B
         |                               |
         |re-INV              (no offer) |
      Mx |------------------------------>| --+
         |SDP-1              offer1(UPD) |   |
      M1 |==============================>|   |
         |SDP-2         answer1 (2xx-UPD)|   |
      M2 |<===========\  /===============|   | first reliable
         |             \/          offer2|   | response
         |SDP-3        /\   (1xx-rel/2xx)|   |
      M3 |<===========/  \===============| <-+
         |SDP-4       answer2 (PRACK/ACK)|
      My |------------------------------>|
         |                               |

                Figure 4b Avoidable message crossing cases









Kyzivat & Sawada        Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model        March 2010


         | M1     | M3       | M2      |  Action
         +--------+----------+---------+---------
         | UPDATE | 2xx-UPD  | UPDATE  |  (1)
         |        |          +---------|---------
         |        |          | INVITE  |  (1)
         |        |          +---------+---------
         |        |          | 1xx-INV |  (2)
         |        |          +---------+---------
         |        |          | 2xx-INV |  (2)
         +--------+----------+---------+---------
         | PRACK  | 2xx-PRA  | UPDATE  |  (1)
         +--------+----------+---------+---------
         | 2xx-INV| ACK      | UPDATE  |  (1)
         |        |          +---------+---------
         |        |          | INVITE  |  (1)
         +--------+----------+---------+---------
         | INVITE | 1xx-rel  | ???     |  (3)
         |        |----------+---------+---------
         |        | 2xx-INV  | ???     |  (3)
         +--------+----------+---------+---------
         | 1xx-rel| PRACK    | ???     |  (3)
         +--------+----------+---------+---------

            Table 3. Offer / Answer Crossing Message Sequences

   (1)  This is indistinguishable from true glare.  UA A should respond
      to M2 with a 491 response.

   (2)  This can only occur in situations depicted in figures 4a and 4b.
      It is easier for UA A to avoid these situations than to recover
      from them.  The situation in Figure 4a can be avoided by
      refraining from sending a re-INVITE without offer when an
      unanswered offer is outstanding.  The situation in Figure 4b can
      be avoided by refraining from sending any message containing an
      offer while an INVITE without offer is outstanding.

   (3)  There are no valid sequences that result in these cases.

   Summarizing, a UA that has an outstanding unanswered offer should:
   o  refrain from sending a re-INVITE without an offer;
   o  reject (491) an INVITE or UPDATE containing an offer.

4.2.  Glare Case Handling

   When both ends in a dialog send a new offer at nearly the same time,
   as described in Figure 5, a UA may receive a new offer before it
   receives the answer to the offer it sent.  This case is usually
   called a 'glare' case.



Kyzivat & Sawada        Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model        March 2010


      A                  B
      |offer1      offer2|
      |-------\  /-------|
      |        \/        |
      |        /\        |
      |<------/  \------>|

                            Figure 5 Glare Case

   When offer2 is in an UPDATE request or (re-)INVITE request, it must
   be rejected with a 491 response.

   When offer2 is in a PRACK request (within the current rules, only
   possible if offer1 is in an UPDATE request), UA A has a dilemma: all
   PRACKs are supposed to be accepted with 200 response, yet there is no
   way to indicate the problem with a 200 response.  At best it could
   proceed on the assumption that its INVITE will be rejected with a
   491.  To avoid this glare condition, UA A should not send an offer if
   it has already sent a reliable provisional response containing an
   answer to a previous offer and has not received the corresponding
   PRACK request.

   Glare can also occur when offer2 is in a 1xx or 2xx response.  To
   avoid this situation, when UA A has sent a (re)INVITE request without
   session description, it should not send an offer until it has
   received an offer in a reliable response to the (re)INVITE, and sent
   an answer to that offer.


5.  Content of Offers and Answers

   While [RFC3264] and [RFC3312] give some guidance, questions remain
   about exactly what should be included in an offer or answer.  This is
   especially a problem when the common "hold" feature has been
   activated, and when there is the potential for a multimedia call.

   Details of behavior depend on the capabilities and state of the User
   Agent.  The kinds of recommendations that can be made are limited by
   the model of device capabilities and state that is presumed to exist.

   This section focuses on a few key aspects of offers and answers that
   have been identified as troublesome, and will consider other aspects
   to be out of scope.  This section considers:
   o  choice of supported media types and formats to include and exclude
   o  hold and resume of media

   The following are out of scope for this document:




Kyzivat & Sawada        Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model        March 2010


   o  NAT traversal and ICE
   o  specific codecs and their parameters
   o  the negotiation of secure media streams
   o  grouping of media streams
   o  preconditions

5.1.  General Principle for Constructing Offers and Answers

   A UA should send an offer that indicates what it, and its user, are
   interested in using/doing at that time, without regard for what the
   other party in the call may have indicated previously.  This is the
   case even when the offer is sent in response to an INVITE or re-
   INVITE that contains no offer.  (However in the case of re-INVITE the
   constraints of RFCs 3261 and 3264 must be observed.)

   A UA should send an answer that includes as close an approximation to
   what the UA and its user are interested in doing at that time, while
   remaining consistent with the offer/answer rules of [RFC3264] and
   other RFCs.

      NOTE: "at that time" is important.  The device may permit the user
      to configure which supported media are to be used by default.

   In some cases a UA may not have direct knowledge of what it is
   interested in doing at a particular time.  If it is an intermediary
   it may be able to delegate the decision.  In the worst case it may
   apply a default, such as assuming it wants to use all of its
   capabilities.

5.2.  Choice of Media Types and Formats to Include and Exclude

5.2.1.  Sending an Initial INVITE with Offer

   When a UAC sends an initial INVITE with an offer, it has complete
   freedom to choose which media type(s) and media format(s) (payload
   types in the case of RTP) it should include in the offer.

   The media types may be all or a subset of the media the UAC is
   capable of supporting, with the particular subset being determined by
   the design and configuration (e.g., via
   [I-D.ietf-sipping-config-framework]) of the UAC combined with input
   from the user interface of the UAC.

   The media formats may be all or a subset of the media formats the UAC
   is capable of supporting for the corresponding media type, with the
   particular subset being determined by the design and configuration of
   the UAC combined with input from the user interface of the UAC.




Kyzivat & Sawada        Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model        March 2010


   Including all supported media formats will maximize the possibility
   that the other party will have a supported format in common.  But
   including many can result in an unacceptably large SDP body.

5.2.2.  Responding with an Offer when the Initial INVITE has no Offer

   When a UAS has received an initial INVITE without an offer, it must
   include an offer in the first reliable response to the INVITE.  It
   has largely the same options as when sending an initial INVITE with
   an offer, but there are some differences.  The choice may be governed
   by both static (default) selections of media types as well as dynamic
   selections made by a user via interaction with the device while it is
   alerting.

      NOTE: The offer may be sent in a provisional response, before the
      user of the device has been alerted and had an opportunity to
      select media options for the call.  In this case the UAS cannot
      include any call-specific options from the user of the device.  If
      there is a possibility that the user of the device will wish to
      change what is offered before answering the call, then special
      care should be taken.  If PRACK and UPDATE are supported by caller
      and callee then an initial offer can be sent reliably, and changed
      with an UPDATE if the user desires a change.  If PRACK and UPDATE
      are not supported then the initial offer cannot be changed until
      the call is fully established.  In that case either the offer
      should be delayed until the 200 is sent, or else the offer should
      include the minimum set of media the user is able to select.

5.2.3.  Answering an Initial INVITE with Offer

   When a UAS receives an initial INVITE with an offer, what media lines
   the answer may contain is constrained by [RFC3264].  The answer must
   contain the same number of m-lines as the offer, and they must
   contain the same media types.  Each media line may be accepted, by
   including a non-zero port number, or rejected by including a zero
   port number in the answer.  The media lines that are accepted should
   typically be those that would have been offered had the INVITE not
   contained an offer, excluding those not offered.

   The media formats the answer may contain are constrained by
   [RFC3264].  For each accepted m-line in the answer, there must be at
   least one media format in common with the corresponding m-line of the
   offer.  The UAS may also include other media formats it is able to
   support at this time.  However there is little benefit to including
   added types.

   If the UAS does not wish to indicate support for any of the media
   types in a particular media line of the offer it must reject the



Kyzivat & Sawada        Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model        March 2010


   corresponding media line, by setting the port number to zero.

5.2.4.  Answering when the Initial INVITE had no Offer

   When a UAC has sent an initial INVITE without an offer, and then
   receives a response with the first offer, it should answer in the
   same way as a UAS receiving an initial INVITE with an offer.

5.2.5.  Subsequent Offers and Answers

   The guidelines above (Section 5.1 and Section 5.2.1 through
   Section 5.2.4) apply, but constraints in [RFC3264] must also be
   followed.  The following are of particular note because they have
   proven troublesome:
   o  The number of m-lines may not be reduced in a subsequent offer.
      Previously rejected media streams must remain, or be reused to
      offer the same or a different stream.  (Section 6 of [RFC3264].)
   o  In the o-line, only the version number may change, and if it
      changes it must increment by one from the one previously sent as
      an offer or answer.  (Section 8 of [RFC3264].)  If it doesn't
      change then the entire SDP body must be identical to what was
      previously sent as an offer or answer.  Changing the o-line,
      except version number value, during the session is an error case.
      The behavior when receiving such a non-compliant offer/answer SDP
      body is implementation dependent.  If a UA needs to negotiate a
      'new' SDP session, it should use the INVITE/Replaces method.
   o  In the case of RTP, the mapping from a particular dynamic payload
      type number to a particular codec within that media stream
      (m-line) must not change for the duration of the session.
      (Section 8.3.2 of [RFC3264].)

         NOTE: This may be impossible for a B2BUA to follow in some
         cases (e.g. 3pcc transfer) if it does not terminate media.

   When the new offer is sent in response to an offerless (re)INVITE, it
   should be constructed according to the General Principle for
   Constructing Offers and Answers (Section 5.1 ): all codecs the UA is
   currently willing and able to use should be included, not just the
   ones that were negotiated by previous offer/answer exchanges.  The
   same is true for media types - so if UA A initially offered audio and
   video to UA B, and they end up with only audio, and UA B sends an
   offerless (re)INVITE to UA A, A's resulting offer should most likely
   re-attempt video, by reusing the zeroed m-line used previously.

      NOTE: The behavior above is recommended, but it is not always
      achievable - for example in some interworking scenarios.  Or, the
      offerer may simply not have enough resources to offer "everything"
      at that point.  Even if the UAS is not able to offer any other SDP



Kyzivat & Sawada        Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model        March 2010


      that the one currently being used, it should not reject the re-
      INVITE.  Instead, it should generate an offer with the currently
      used SDP with o- line unchanged.

5.3.  Hold and Resume of media

   [RFC3264] specifies (using non-normative language) that "hold" should
   be indicated in an established session by sending a new offer
   containing "a=sendonly" for each media stream to be held.  An
   answerer is then to respond with "a=recvonly" to acknowledge that the
   hold request has been understood.

   Note that the use of sendonly/recvonly is not limited to hold.  These
   may be used for other reasons, such as devices that are only capable
   of sending or receiving.  So receiving an offer with "a=sendonly"
   must not be treated as a certain indication that the offerer has
   placed the media stream on hold.

   This model is based on an assumption that the UA initiating the hold
   will want to play Music on Hold, which is not always the case.  A UA
   may, if desired, initiate hold by offering "a=inactive" if it does
   not intend to transmit any media while in hold status.

   The rules of [RFC3264] constrain what may be in an answer when the
   offer contains "sendonly", "recvonly", or "inactive" in an a= line.
   But they do not constrain what must be in a subsequent offer.  The
   General Principle for Constructing Offers and Answers (Section 5.1)
   is important here.  The initiation of "hold" is a local action.  It
   should reflect the desired state of the UA.  It then affects what the
   UA includes in offers and answers until the local state is reset.

   The receipt of an offer containing "a=sendonly" or "a=inactive" and
   the sending of a compatible answer should not change the desired
   state of the recipient.  However, a UA that has been "placed on hold"
   may itself desire to initiate its own hold status, based on local
   input.

   If UA2 has previously been "placed on hold" by UA1, via receipt of
   "a=sendonly", then it may initiate its own hold by sending a new
   offer containing "a=sendonly" to UA1.  Upon receipt of that, UA1 will
   answer with "a=inactive" because that is the only valid answer that
   reflects its desire not to receive media.

      NOTE: Section 8.4 of RFC3264 contains a conflicting recommendation
      that the offer contain "a=inactive" in this case.  We interpret
      that recommendation to be non-normative.  The use of "a=sendonly"
      in this case will never produce a worse outcome, and can produce a
      better outcome in useful cases.



Kyzivat & Sawada        Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model        March 2010


   Once in this state, to resume a two way exchange of media each side
   must reset its local hold status.  If UA1 is first to go off hold it
   will then send an offer with "a=sendrecv".  The UA2 will respond with
   its desired state of "a=sendonly" because that is a permitted
   response.  When UA2 desires to also resume, it will send an offer
   with "a=sendrecv".  In this case, because UA1 has the same desire it
   will respond with "a=sendrecv".  In the same case, when UA2 receives
   the offer with "a=sendrecv", if it has decided it wants to reset its
   local hold but has not yet signaled the intent, it may send
   "a=sendrecv" in the answer.

   If UA2 has been "placed on hold" by UA1 via receipt of "a=inactive",
   and subsequently wants to initiate its own hold, also using
   "a=inactive", it need not send a new offer, since the only valid
   response is "a=inactive" and that is already in effect.  However, its
   local desired state will now be either "inactive" or "a=sendonly".
   This affects what it will send in future offers and answers.

   If a UA has occasion to send another offer in the session, without
   any desire to change the hold status (e.g. in response to a re-
   INVITE without an offer, or when sending a re-INVITE to refresh the
   session timer) it should follow the General Principle for
   Constructing Offers and Answers (Section 5.1).  If it previously
   initiated a "hold" by sending "a=sendonly" or "a=inactive" then it
   should offer that again.  If it had not previously initiated "hold"
   then it should offer "a=sendrecv", even if it had previously been
   forced to answer something else.  Without this behavior it is
   possible to get "stuck on hold" in some cases, especially when a
   third-party call controller is involved.

5.4.  Behavior on receiving SDP with c=0.0.0.0

   [RFC3264] specifies that an agent MUST be capable of receiving SDP
   with a connection address of 0.0.0.0, in which case it means that
   neither RTP nor RTCP should be sent to the peer.

   If a UA generates an answer to the offer received with c=0.0.0.0, the
   direction attribute of the accepted media stream in the answer must
   be based on direction attribute of the offered stream and rules
   specified in RFC 3264 to form the a-line in the answer. c=0.0.0.0 has
   no special meaning for the direction attribute of the accepted stream
   in the answer.


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.




Kyzivat & Sawada        Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model        March 2010


7.  Security Considerations

   There are not any security issues beyond the referenced RFCs.


8.  Acknowledgement

   The authors would like to thank Christer Holmberg, Rajeev Seth,
   Nataraju A B, Byron Campen, Jonathan Rosenberg, Gonzalo Camarillo and
   Shinji Okumura for their thorough reviews and comments.  Many of
   their suggestions and ideas have been incorporated in this document.


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

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

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

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

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

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

   [RFC3312]  Camarillo, G., Marshall, W., and J. Rosenberg,
              "Integration of Resource Management and Session Initiation
              Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3312, October 2002.

   [I-D.camarillo-sipcore-reinvite]
              Camarillo, G., Holmberg, C., and G. yang, "Re-INVITE and
              Target-refresh Request Handling in the Session Initiation
              Protocol (SIP)", draft-camarillo-sipcore-reinvite-01 (work
              in progress), October 2009.






Kyzivat & Sawada        Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model        March 2010


9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3959]  Camarillo, G., "The Early Session Disposition Type for the
              Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3959,
              December 2004.

   [I-D.ietf-sipping-config-framework]
              Channabasappa, S., "A Framework for Session Initiation
              Protocol User Agent Profile Delivery",
              draft-ietf-sipping-config-framework-17 (work in progress),
              February 2010.


Authors' Addresses

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

   Email: pkyzivat@cisco.com


   Takuya Sawada
   KDDI Corporation
   3-10-10, Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku
   Tokyo
   Japan

   Email: tu-sawada@kddi.com




















Kyzivat & Sawada        Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 22]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/