[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [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                                                       S. Okumura
Internet-Draft                                                 Softfront
Intended status: Informational                                 T. Sawada
Expires: November 24, 2011                              KDDI Corporation
                                                              P. Kyzivat
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                            May 23, 2011


   SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) Usage of the Offer/Answer Model
                 draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer-15

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 in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 24, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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
   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



Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


   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 Simplified 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  . . . .  7
   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.2.  Offer/Answer Exchange in Early Dialog  . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.3.  Offer/Answer Exchange in an Established Dialog . . . . . . 12
     3.4.  Recovering From a Failed ReINVITE  . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   4.  Exceptional Case Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.1.  Message Crossing Case Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.2.  Glare Case Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     4.3.  Interworking of UPDATE and re-INVITE . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   5.  Content of Offers and Answers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     5.1.  General Principle for Constructing Offers and Answers  . . 25
     5.2.  Choice of Media Types and Formats to Include and
           Exclude  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       5.2.1.  Sending an Initial INVITE with Offer . . . . . . . . . 26
       5.2.2.  Responding with an Offer when the Initial INVITE
               has no Offer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       5.2.3.  Answering an Initial INVITE with Offer . . . . . . . . 27
       5.2.4.  Answering when the Initial INVITE had no Offer . . . . 27
       5.2.5.  Subsequent Offers and Answers  . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     5.3.  Hold and Resume of media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     5.4.  Behavior on receiving SDP with c=0.0.0.0 . . . . . . . . . 30
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   8.  Acknowledgement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32






Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


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 [RFC6141].)

   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.  This document also
   provides a reference for future standards development work on the SIP
   offer/answer model.

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 [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.



Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


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 [RFC6141].  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.







Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


            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 re-INVITE extra care must be taken, as detailed in
   [RFC6141].  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
   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 send an error response to
   the (re)INVITE request to terminate the dialog or to roll back the
   offer-answer status before sending re-INVITE request.  In this case



Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


   UAS should not continue to retransmit the unacknowledged reliable
   provisional response, UAC should not continue to retransmit a PRACK
   request.

   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)

   In addition, there is a possibility for UAC to receive a 488 response
   for an PRACK request.  In that case, UAC may send again a PRACK
   request without an offer or send a CANCEL request to terminate the
   INVITE transaction.

      NOTE: In [RFC3262], the following restriction is defined with
      regard to responding to a PRACK request.

      "If the PRACK does match an unacknowledged reliable provisional
      response, it MUST be responded to with a 2xx response."

      This restriction is not clear.  There are cases where it is
      unacceptable to send a 2xx response.  For example, the UAS may
      need to send an authentication challenge in a 401 response.  This
      is an open issue and out of scope for this document.

   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.

   In [RFC3262] section 14.2 UAS Behavior,

      "The UAS MUST ensure that the session description overlaps with
      its previous session description in media formats, transports, or
      other parameters that require support from the peer.  This is to
      avoid the need for the peer to reject the session description."
   This is a rule for an offer within 2xx response to a re-INVITE.  This
   rule should be applied to an offer within a reliable provisional



Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


   response and a PRACK request.

        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 re-INVITE, 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 a 200 OK response for OPTIONS and a
   488 response 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, 4 and 5 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.







Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


3.1.1.  INVITE Request with SDP

   When a UAC includes a SDP body in the INVITE request as an offer,
   only the first SDP in a reliable non-failure response to the INVITE
   request is the real answer.  No other offer/answer exchanges can
   occur within the messages (other responses and ACK) of the INVITE
   transaction.

   In [RFC3261] there are some descriptions about an offer/answer
   exchange, but those cause a little confusion.  We interpret those
   descriptions as follows,

   UAC behavior
      1.  If the first SDP that UAC received is included in an
          unreliable provisional response to the INVITE request, UAC
          MUST treat it as an answer.  But the SDP is not a true answer
          by regulations, therefore the offer/answer exchange is not yet
          completed.
      2.  After UAC has received the answer in a reliable provisional
          response to the INVITE, any SDP in subsequent responses to the
          INVITE MUST be ignored.
      3.  If the second and subsequent SDP(including a real answer) is
          different from the first SDP, UAC should consider that the SDP
          is equal to the first SDP.  Therefore, UAC should not switch
          to the new SDP.

   UAS behavior
      1.  All SDP in the responses to the INVITE request MUST be the
          same exactly.
      2.  After UAS has sent the answer in a reliable provisional
          response to the INVITE, UAS should not include any SDP in
          subsequent responses to the INVITE.
      3.  UAS MAY send any provisional response without a SDP regardless
          of the transmission of the answer.

   A session description in an unreliable response that precedes a
   reliable response can be considered a "preview" of the answer that
   will be coming.

      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 [RFC3261] 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:



Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


   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.

   Therefore, a UAS should send a 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.

      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)



Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


   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
   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 a reliable non-failure response, which is
   the real answer.  After sending the SDP in F6, the UAS must prepare
   to receive a new offer from the UAC in a PRACK request, or in an
   UPDATE request if the UAS supports UPDATE.

   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 a SDP body in the INVITE request, it
   expects an offer to be received with the first reliable non-failure
   response.  And a UAS MUST include an offer in the first reliable non-
   failure response and should not include any SDP in the other
   responses to the INVITE request.  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: In Figure 2, 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.





















Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


      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



Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


   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 (Third Party Call Control) [RFC3725]
   flows will break.

3.4.  Recovering From a Failed ReINVITE

   If a re-INVITE fails, the session parameters in effect prior to the
   re-INVITE MUST remain unchanged, as if no re-INVITE had been issued.
   ([RFC3261] section 14.1 UAC Behavior.)  This remains the case even if
   multiple offer/answer exchanges have occurred between the sending of
   the re-INVITE 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 specification [RFC6141]
   recommends the UAS to send a 2xx response to a re-INVITE in cases
   where rolling back changes would be problematic.



Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


   Nevertheless, a UAC may receive a failure response to a re-INVITE
   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 [RFC6141] 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
   enumerated in Table 3.  (This table only shows messages containing



Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


   offers or answers.  There could be other messages, without session
   descriptions, which are not shown.)

   When a response to UPDATE request crosses a reliable response to
   INVITE request, there are variants shown in Figures 4 and 5, which
   are dependent on an INVITE (Mx) that contains no offer.  These are
   also included in Table 3.

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

                Figure 4: Avoidable message crossing cases

   To avoid this message crossing condition shown in Figure 4, UA A
   should not send this re-INVITE request until an UPDATE transaction
   has been completed.  If UA B encounters this message crossing
   condition, it should reject this re-INVITE request with a 500
   response.

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

                Figure 5: Avoidable message crossing cases




Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


   To avoid this message crossing condition shown in Figure 5, UA A
   should not send this UPDATE request until an ACK or a PRACK
   transaction associated with an offer-answer has been completed.  If
   UA B encounters this message crossing condition, it should reject
   this UPDATE request with a 500 response.

   The situation when PRACK request crosses UPDATE request is shown in
   Figure 6.

                   A                               B
                   |                               |
                   |           re-INVITE (no offer)|
   1st reliable+-- |<------------------------------|
   response    | M1|1xx-rel(offer1)                |
               +-> |==============================>| --+
                   |                 PRACK(answer1)| M3| Acknowledge
                   |<===========\  /===============| <-+
                   |             \/                |
                   |             /\  UPDATE(offer2)|
                   |<===========/  \===============| M2
                   |500-UPD                        |
                   |------------------------------>|
                   |2xx-PRA                        |
                   |------------------------------>|
                   |                               |

                Figure 6: Avoidable message crossing cases

   To avoid the message crossing condition shown in Figure 6, UA B
   should not send this UPDATE request until an PRACK transaction
   associated with an offer-answer has been completed.  If UA A
   encounters this message crossing condition, it should reject this
   UPDATE request with a 500 response.

   The situation when a reliable provisional response to INVITE request
   crosses UPDATE request is shown in Figure 7.















Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


                   A                               B
                   |                               |
                   |re-INVITE(offer1)              |
                M1 |==============================>|
                   |               1xx-rel(answer1)|
                   |<===========\  /===============| M3
                   |             \/                |
                   |             /\  UPDATE(offer2)|
               +-- |<===========/  \===============| M2
               |   |491-UPD                        |
   Acknowledge |   |------------------------------>|
               |   |PRACK                          |
               +-> |------------------------------>|
                   |                               |

                Figure 7: Avoidable message crossing cases

   To avoid the message crossing condition shown in Figure 7, UA B
   should not send this UPDATE request until an PRACK transaction
   associated with an offer-answer has been completed.  If UA A
   encounters this message crossing condition, it should reject this
   UPDATE request with a 491 response.

   The situation when a 2xx response to INVITE request crosses UPDATE
   request is shown in Figure 8.

                   A                               B
                   |                               |
                   |re-INVITE(offer1)              |
                   |==============================>|
                   |               2xx-INV(answer1)|
                   |<===========\  /===============|
                   |             \/                |
                   |             /\  UPDATE(offer2)|
               +-- |<===========/  \===============|
               |   |491-UPD                        |
   Acknowledge |   |------------------------------>|
               |   |ACK                            |
               +-> |------------------------------>|
                   |                               |

                Figure 8: Avoidable message crossing cases

   This is a true glare.  To avoid the message crossing condition shown
   in Figure 8, UA B should not send the UPDATE request until it has
   received an ACK request.  But there is no problem even if UA B sends
   it.  If UA A encounters this message crossing condition, it should
   reject this UPDATE request with a 491 response.



Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


   The situation when a response to UPDATE request crosses PRACK request
   is shown in Figure 9.

                   A                               B
                   |                               |
                   |              re-INVITE(offer0)|
                   |<------------------------------|
                   |1xx-rel(answer0)               |
                   |------------------------------>| --+
                   |UPDATE(offer1)                 |   |
                M1 |==============================>|   |
                   |               2xx-UPD(answer1)|   | Acknowledge
                   |<===========\  /===============| M3|
                   |             \/                |   |
                   |             /\   PRACK(offer2)| M2|
                   |<===========/  \===============| <-+
                   |                               |

                 Figure 9: Avoidable message crossing case

   To avoid the message crossing condition shown in Figure 9, UA A
   should not send this UPDATE request until an PRACK transaction
   associated with an offer-answer has been completed.  If UA B
   encounters this message crossing condition, it should reject this
   UPDATE request with a 491 response.


























Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


   Table 3 summarize this section.  Each action is described in
   Section 4.3.

        | M1     | M3       | M2        |Action |Action |Figure|
        |(offer1)|(answer1) |(offer2)   | of A  | of B  |      |
        +--------+----------+-----------+-------+-------+------+
        | UPDATE | 2xx-UPD  | UPDATE    |UAS-UcU|       |      |
        |        |          +-----------+-------+ -     |      |
        |        |          | INVITE    |UAS-UcI|       |      |
        |        |          +-----------+-------+-------+------+
        |        |          | 1xx-INV   |       |       |      |
        |        |          +-----------+UAC-UI,|UAS-UsI| 4,5  |
        |        |          | 2xx-INV   |UAC-IU |UAS-IsU|      |
        |        |          +-----------+-------+-------+------+
        |        |          | PRACK  (*)|UAC-IU |UAS-IcU|  9   |
        +--------+----------+-----------+-------+-------+------+
        | PRACK  | 2xx-PRA  | UPDATE    |UAS-IcU|       |      |
        +--------+----------+-----------+-------+       |      |
        | 2xx-INV| ACK      | UPDATE    |UAS-IsU| -     |      |
        |        |          +-----------+-------+       |      |
        |        |          | INVITE    |UAS-IsI|       |      |
        +--------+----------+-----------+-------+-------+------+
        | 1xx-rel| PRACK    | UPDATE    |UAS-IsU|       |  6   |
        +--------+----------+-----------+-------+UAC-IU +------+
        | INVITE | 1xx-rel  | UPDATE (*)|       |       |  7   |
        |        +----------+-----------+UAS-IcU+-------+------+
        |        | 2xx-INV  | UPDATE (*)|       | -     |  8   |
        +--------+----------+-----------+-------+-------+------+
        (*) invalid sequences if INVITE request is an initial one

            Table 3: Offer / Answer Crossing Message Sequences

4.2.  Glare Case Handling

   When both ends in a dialog send a new offer at nearly the same time,
   as described in Figure 10, 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.

         A                  B
         |offer1      offer2|
      M1 |-------\  /-------| M2
         |        \/        |
         |        /\        |
         |<------/  \------>|

                           Figure 10: Glare Case




Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


   When offer2 is in an UPDATE request or (re-)INVITE request, it must
   be rejected with a 491 or 500 response.

   There is a variant of Figure 7.  When offer2 is in a PRACK request
   (within the current rules, only possible if offer1 is in an UPDATE
   request), as shown in Figure 11, UA A has a dilemma.

                   A                               B
                   |                               |
                   |              re-INVITE(offer0)|
                   |<------------------------------|
                   |1xx-rel(answer0)               |
                   |------------------------------>| --+
                   |UPDATE(offer1)    PRACK(offer2)| M2| Acknowledge
                M1 |============\  /===============| <-+
                   |             \/                |
                   |             /\                |
                   |<===========/  \==============>|
                   |                        491-UPD|
                   |<------------------------------|
                   |                               |

                      Figure 11: Avoidable glare case

   All PRACKs are supposed to be accepted with a 200 response, yet there
   is no way to indicate the problem with a 200 response.  At best it
   could proceed on the assumption that the UPDATE will be rejected with
   a 491.  To avoid this glare condition shown in Figure 11, UA A should
   not send this UPDATE request until an PRACK transaction associated
   with an offer-answer has been completed.  If UA B encounters this
   glare condition it should reject this UPDATE request with a 491
   response.

   Glare can also occur when offer2 is in a 1xx or 2xx response.  This
   is a variant of Figure 5, as shown in Figure 12.
















Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


                   A                               B
                   |                               |
                   |re-INVITE(no offer)            |
                   |------------------------------>| --+
                   |                1xx-rel/2xx-INV|   | 1st reliable
                   |UPDATE(offer1)         (offer2)| M2| response
                M1 |============\  /===============| <-+
                   |             \/                |
                   |             /\                |
                   |<===========/  \==============>|
                   |                        500-UPD|
                   |<------------------------------|
                   |                               |

                      Figure 12: Avoidable glare case

   To avoid this glare condition shown in Figure 12, UA A should not
   send this UPDATE request until an ACK or a PRACK transaction
   associated with an offer-answer has been completed.  If UA B
   encounters this glare condition it should reject this UPDATE request
   with a 500 response.

   There is a variant of Figure 4, as shown in Figure 13.

                   A                               B
                   |                               |
                   |UPDATE(offer1)                 |
                   |==========\                    |
                   |re-INVITE  \  (no offer)       |
                   |------------\----------------->| --+
                   |             \  1xx-rel/2xx-INV|   | 1st reliable
                   |              \        (offer2)|   | response
                   |<==============\===============| <-+
                   |                \              |
                   |                 \============>|
                   |                        500-UPD|
                   |<------------------------------|
                   |                               |

                      Figure 13: Avoidable glare case

   To avoid this glare condition shown in Figure 13, UA A should not
   send this re-INVITE request until an UPDATE transaction has been
   completed.  If UA B encounters this glare condition it should reject
   this UPDATE request with a 500 response.






Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


   Table 4 summarize this section.  Each action is described in
   Section 4.3.

       | offer1    | offer2    |Action |Action |Figure|
       |  M1       |  M2       | of A  | of B  |      |
       +-----------+-----------+-------+-------+------+
       |           | re-INVITE |UAS-IcI|UAS-IcI|      |
       | re-INVITE +-----------+-------+-------+      |
       |           | UPDATE    |UAS-IcU|UAS-UcI|      |
       +-----------+-----------+-------+-------+      |
       |           | UPDATE    |UAS-UcU|UAS-UcU|      |
       |           +-----------+-------+-------+------+
       |           | 1xx-rel   |       |       |      |
       | UPDATE    +-----------+UAC-IU,|UAS-IsU|12,13 |
       |           | 2xx-INV   |UAC-UI |       |      |
       |           +-----------+-------+-------+------+
       |           | PRACK (*) |UAC-IU |UAS-IcU|  11  |
       +-----------+-----------+-------+-------+------+
        (*) invalid sequences if INVITE request is an initial one

              Table 4: Offer / Answer Glare Message Sequences

4.3.  Interworking of UPDATE and re-INVITE

   Almost all exceptional cases are caused by an interworking of UPDATE
   and re-INVITE.  The interworking is described in Section 5 of
   [RFC3311].  And UAC Behavior sending an UPDATE is described in
   Section 5.1 of [RFC3311].  There are two concerns in this section,
   1.  It seems to describe different rules for each of initial INVITE
       and re-INVITE.  But there is no particular reason why the rules
       are separated.  The lack of restrictions for sending a re-INVITE
       request cause a lot of problems shown in Section 4.1.
   2.  It seems to describe that a UA may send an UPDATE request after
       sending or receiving a PRACK request.  But it should be "after
       PRACK transaction is completed by 2xx response", because it
       causes the message-crossing case shown in Figure 6

   Since it is assumed that the language in this section itself is non-
   normative and is justified as a corollary of 3261, we interpret it as
   follows,
   UAC-II:   While an INVITE transaction is incomplete or ACK
             transaction associated with an offer-answer is incomplete,
             a UA must not send another INVITE request.
   UAC-UU:   While an UPDATE transaction is incomplete, a UA must not
             send another UPDATE request.






Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


   UAC-UI:   While an UPDATE transaction is incomplete, a UA should not
             send a re-INVITE request.
   UAC-IU:   While an INVITE transaction is incomplete, and an ACK or a
             PRACK transaction associated with an offer-answer is
             incomplete, a UA should not send an UPDATE request.

   When a 2xx response to an INVITE includes an offer, the ACK
   transaction is considered to be associated with an offer-answer.

   When a reliable provisional response to an INVITE includes an offer
   or an answer, the PRACK transaction is considered to be associated
   with an offer-answer.

   UAS Behavior receiving an UPDATE is described in Section 5.2 of
   [RFC3311].  There are two concerns in this section,
   1.  There are no description about the interworking of an UPDATE
       request and an INVITE request without an offer.
   2.  There are no description about the interworking of an UPDATE
       request and reliable response to INVITE with an offer.

   We interpret this section as follows,
   UAS-IcI:  While an INVITE client transaction is incomplete or ACK
             transaction associated with an offer-answer is incomplete,
             a UA must reject another INVITE request with a 491
             response.
   UAS-IsI:  While an INVITE server transaction is incomplete or ACK
             transaction associated with an offer-answer is incomplete,
             a UA must reject another INVITE request with a 500
             response.
   UAS-UcU:  While an UPDATE client transaction is incomplete, a UA must
             reject another UPDATE request with a 491 response.
   UAS-UsU:  While an UPDATE server transaction is incomplete, a UA must
             reject another UPDATE request with a 500 response.
   UAS-UcI:  While an UPDATE client transaction is incomplete, a UA
             should reject a re-INVITE request with a 491 response.
   UAS-UsI:  While an UPDATE server transaction is incomplete, a UA
             should reject a re-INVITE request with a 500 response.
   UAS-IcU:  While an INVITE client transaction is incomplete, and an
             ACK or a PRACK transaction associated with an offer-answer
             is incomplete, a UA should reject an UPDATE request with a
             491 response.
   UAS-IsU:  While an INVITE server transaction is incomplete, and an
             ACK or a PRACK transaction associated with an offer-answer
             is incomplete, a UA should reject an UPDATE request with a
             500 response.

   These rules are shown in following figures.




Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011              [Page 22]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


               A                               B
               |                               |
               |                         UPDATE|
               |<------------------------------|
               |UPDATE                         |
               |==============================>|
               |                            491|
               |<==============================|
               |                               |

                 Figure 14: Example of UAC-UU and UAS-UcU


               A                               B
               |                               |
               |UPDATE CSeq:m                  |
               |------------------------------>|
               |UPDATE CSeq:n(>m)              |
               |==============================>|
               |            500 (UPDATE CSeq:n)|
               |<==============================|
               |                               |

                 Figure 15: Example of UAC-UU and UAS-UsU


               A                               B
               |                               |
               |                 UPDATE(offer1)|
               |<------------------------------|
               |reINVITE(no offer)             |
               |==============================>|
               |                   491 (INVITE)|
               |<==============================|
               |                               |

                 Figure 16: Example of UAC-UI and UAS-UcI














Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011              [Page 23]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


               A                               B
               |                               |
               |UPDATE(offer1)                 |
               |------------------------------>|
               |reINVITE(no offer)             |
               |==============================>|
               |                   500 (INVITE)|
               |<==============================|
               |                               |

                 Figure 17: Example of UAC-UU and UAS-UsI


               A                               B
               |                               |
               |             reINVITE(no offer)|
               |<------------------------------|
               |1xx-rel(offer0)                |
               |------------------------------>|
               |UPDATE(offer1)                 |
               |==============================>|
               |                   491 (UPDATE)|
               |<==============================|
               |                               |

                 Figure 18: Example of UAC-IU and UAS-IcU


               A                               B
               |                               |
               |reINVITE(no offer)             |
               |------------------------------>|
               |                1xx-rel(offer0)|
               |<------------------------------|
               |UPDATE(offer1)                 |
               |==============================>|
               |                   500 (UPDATE)|
               |<==============================|
               |                               |

                 Figure 19: Example of UAC-IU and UAS-IsU

   In addition, it is assumed that the UPDATE request in this section
   include an offer.  The interworking of a re-INVITE and an UPDATE
   without an offer is out of scope for this document.






Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011              [Page 24]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


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:
   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 [RFC3261] and [RFC3264] 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.





Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011              [Page 25]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


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 [RFC6080]) 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.

   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 reliable 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 the offer in a 200 response for the initial INVITE should
      include only the media types and formats believed to be acceptable
      to the user.





Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011              [Page 26]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


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 with types and formats the UAS would have included
   if it were the offerer.

   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.  Doing so establishes an asymmetric media
   format situation, where these "other" media formats may only be sent
   from the offerer to the answerer.  This asymmetric media situation is
   also limited because it cannot be sustained if there is a subsequent
   offer/answer exchange in the opposite direction.  Also, there is
   limited value in including these other media formats because there is
   no assurance that the offerer will be able to use them.

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

   When the UAS wishes to reject all of the media lines in the offer, it
   may send a 488 failure response.  Alternatively it may send a
   reliable non-failure response including all media lines with port
   numbers set 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.

   Because the offer arrives in a response to the INVITE, the UAC cannot
   reject the message containing the offer.  If the UAC wishes to reject
   the entire offer, it must send a PRACK or ACK request including all
   the media lines with ports set to zero.  Then, if it does not wish to
   continue the session it may send a CANCEL or BYE request to terminate
   the dialog.







Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011              [Page 27]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


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
      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



Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011              [Page 28]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


   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.

   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



Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011              [Page 29]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


   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 3pcc
   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=IN IP4
   0.0.0.0", the direction attribute of the accepted media stream in the
   answer must still be based on direction attribute of the offered
   stream and rules specified in [RFC3264] to form the direction a-line
   in the answer.  There is no clear rule about the use of "c=IN IP4
   0.0.0.0" in the answer - it may be used or c-line with a valid IP
   address may be used.  RTP/RTCP will not be sent toward an address of
   0.0.0.0 because it is an invalid address.


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.


7.  Security Considerations

   This document clarifies ambiguities in the intended behavior of the
   two SIP User Agents engaged in a dialog.  The primary specification



Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011              [Page 30]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


   of offer/answer behavior that is being clarified resides in [RFC3261]
   and [RFC3264], with extensions in [RFC3311], [RFC3312], and
   [RFC6141].  The focus of this document is on cases where ambiguities
   can result failed or degraded calls when there is no attacker.  The
   clarifications exclude call flows that lead to difficulties, without
   legitimizing any formerly invalid call flows.  Thus the security
   considerations of the above mentioned documents continue to apply and
   need not be extended to handle any additional cases.

   The offer/answer process can be disrupted in numerous ways by an
   attacker.  SIP provides mechanisms to protect the offer/answer
   exchange from tampering by 3rd parties.  Of note is Enhancements for
   Authenticated  Identity Management in the Session Initiation Protocol
   (SIP) [RFC4474], as well as Section Section 26.3.2 (Security
   Solutions) of [RFC3261].


8.  Acknowledgement

   The authors would like to thank Christer Holmberg, Rajeev Seth,
   Nataraju A B, Byron Campen, Jonathan Rosenberg, Gonzalo Camarillo and
   Gao Yang 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.




Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011              [Page 31]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


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

   [RFC6141]  Camarillo, G., Holmberg, C., and Y. Gao, "Re-INVITE and
              Target-Refresh Request Handling in the Session Initiation
              Protocol (SIP)", RFC 6141, March 2011.

9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3725]  Rosenberg, J., Peterson, J., Schulzrinne, H., and G.
              Camarillo, "Best Current Practices for Third Party Call
              Control (3pcc) in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
              BCP 85, RFC 3725, April 2004.

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

   [RFC4474]  Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for
              Authenticated Identity Management in the Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4474, August 2006.

   [RFC6080]  Petrie, D. and S. Channabasappa, "A Framework for Session
              Initiation Protocol User Agent Profile Delivery",
              RFC 6080, March 2011.


Authors' Addresses

   OKUMURA Shinji
   Softfront
   28-196, Noth9, West15, Chuo-ku
   Sapporo, Hokkaido  060-0009
   Japan

   Email: shinji.okumura@softfront.jp


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

   Email: tu-sawada@kddi.com





Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011              [Page 32]

Internet-Draft     SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model          May 2011


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

   Email: pkyzivat@cisco.com












































Okumura, et al.         Expires November 24, 2011              [Page 33]


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