Sipping T. Sawada
Internet-Draft KDDI Corporation
Intended status: Informational P. Kyzivat
Expires: July 5, 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc.
January 1, 2009
SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) Usage of the Offer/Answer Model
draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer-10
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 5, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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
to this document.
Abstract
The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) utilizes the offer/answer model
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
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.
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Summary of SIP usage of the Offer/Answer Model . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Offer/Answer Exchange Pairs in SIP Messages . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Rejection of an Offer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
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 . . . . . . 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. Remaining Issues or Best Practices on Offer/Answer . . . . . . 20
6.1. Rejecting PRACK Offer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.2. Commit/Rollback of Offer/Answer on Unsuccessful
re-INVITE Transaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.3. Offer in a Reliable Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.4. Requesting Hold while already on Hold . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. Add New Offer/Answer Usage in SIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1. Explicit Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.2. Rejection of an Offer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.3. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.4. Exceptional Case Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
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], and
[RFC3311].)
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 is not intended to make normative changes. Rather, it
makes the remaining open issues clear and leaves them for further
study.
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 currently 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.
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
2.1. Offer/Answer Exchange Pairs in SIP Messages
Currently, the rules on the offer/answer model are defined in
[RFC3261], [RFC3262], [RFC3264], and [RFC3311]. 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.
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
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 entirely 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)
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
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
dialog and send an error response to the INVITE request. The
validity and consequences of a 488 response to PRACK is an open issue
which is discussed in Section 6.1. (Pattern 5)
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
(*) 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
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
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
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.
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.
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
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
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.
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
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.
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.
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
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
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
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
should be answered immediately unless such a user interaction is
needed. Otherwise, some 3pcc flows will break.
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
offers or answers. There could be other messages, without session
descriptions, which are not shown.)
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
There is a variant, shown in Figure 4, which is dependent on an
INVITE (Mx) that contains no offer. This case should be extremely
rare - it is easily avoided by delaying Mx until answer1 is received.
It adds another possibility to 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 |------------------------------>| Wait until answer1
| |
Figure 4 Reliable response as a message with offer2 in message
crossing case
| M1 | M3 | M2 |
|--------+----------+---------|
| INVITE | 1xx-rel | UPDATE |
|--------+----------+---------|
| PRACK | 200-PRA | UPDATE |
|--------+----------+---------|
| UPDATE | 200-UPD | UPDATE |
| | |---------|
| | | INVITE | (no INV in progress)
| | |---------|
| | | 2xx-INV | (INV in progress)
| | |---------|
| | | 1xx-rel | (from Figure 4)
|-----------------------------|
Table 3. Offer / Answer Crossing Message Sequences
Table 3 shows that there are only two ambiguous cases when an answer
is expected and an arriving message M2 containing SDP could be either
the expected answer or an offer. These are a reliable 1xx response
to an INVITE, or an UPDATE.
When message M2 is an UPDATE request or a (re)INVITE request, then
message M1 must also have been an UPDATE or INVITE. There may have
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
been message crossing, or not. If not then it is a glare case.
Either way, the remedy is for UA A to reject message M2 with a 491
response with Retry-After header field.
When M2 is a reliable provisional response or a successful final
response, and M1 was an UPDATE, then SDP-2 cannot be the expected
answer1. In this case, since UA A can not reject offer2 in reliable
response M2, it is recommended that it wait for answer1 before
sending a PRACK request with the answer to offer2. Note that this
case only occurs when UA A, while waiting for an answer, sends an
INVITE request without session description.
When M2 is a PRACK request Table 3 shows that it cannot be an offer
out of order, so UA A may infer SDP-2 is an answer.
Table 4 summarizes the discussions above.
SDP-2 | How to know it's not answer1 | Actions to take
-------+------------------------------+--------------------------
INVITE | Never be an answer | 491 response
UPDATE | Glare case for UA A | with Retry-After
-------+------------------------------+--------------------------
1xx-rel| If M1 was UPDATE then SDP-2 | Delay ACK/PRACK
2xx-INV| is not answer1 | until answer1 is received
-------+------------------------------+--------------------------
PRACK | This case never happens | Not a message cross case
| under the current rules. | Treat SDP-2 as answer2
-------+------------------------------+--------------------------
Table 4. Message Crossing Resolution
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.
A B
|offer1 offer2|
|-------\ /-------|
| \/ |
| /\ |
|<------/ \------>|
Figure 5 Glare Case
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
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), the PRACK may be
accepted with 200 or may be rejected with a 491 response. A 491
response is valid to satisfy the offer/answer model but it may delay
the completion of the reliable response transfer mechanism or, in
worst case, may result in the failure to complete the SIP transaction
because there is no clear retry rule when a PRACK request is rejected
with a 491 response. 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.
To avoid a glare condition involving an offer in a response, 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:
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
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
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.
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.
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
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
corresponding media line, by setting the port number to zero.
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
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,
all codecs supported by the UA are to 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 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.
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
5.3. Hold and Resume of media
[RFC3264] specifies (non-normatively) 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.
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
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
"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. Remaining Issues or Best Practices on Offer/Answer
This document clarifies the offer/answer usage in SIP and summarizes
the correct or recommended behaviors along with the existing RFCs.
To create any new normative behaviors beyond these RFCs is not the
intent of this document.
However, through the scrutiny of the offer/answer model in SIP, some
issues are found to be unresolved within the current set of RFCs.
Those remaining issues are described in this section mainly for
further study.
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
6.1. Rejecting PRACK Offer
As stated in Section 2.2 and Section 3.2, it is recommended that an
offer not be sent in a PRACK request unless UAC has strong reasons to
assume the receiver will accept it. Even so, there may be cases when
the UAS has to reject the offer for some reason. The current RFCs do
not provide a way to reject the offer and at the same time to
indicate that the PRACK adequately acknowledged the reliable
response. It is unclear whether a non-200 response can still
indicate an acknowledgement of the reliable response.
Several ideas were presented to resolve this issue, such as sending
2xx PRACK response without SDP to reject the offer, or sending SDP
with a decreased version value in the o-line. Some of the candidates
may also be adapted as a way to reject an unacceptable offer in a
response. Anyway, those proposals violate the current rules and lose
backward compatibility to some extent (e.g. section 5 of [RFC3262]).
It is beyond the scope of this document and remains for further
study.
The 488 response is another proposed solution; however the validity
and consequences of a 488 response to PRACK is an open issue.
Because the 488 response may be sent by a proxy, the UAC cannot
assume the reliable transaction has been adequately acknowledged. If
a 488 response is received, the UAC should ensure acknowledgment of
the reliable response by sending a new PRACK with the offer removed
or modified based upon the received 488 response. If the 488
response is sent by UAS (open issue), it cannot assume that the UAC
thinks that the reliable transaction has been adequately acknowledged
even though the UAS may treat otherwise (open issue). If a 488
response is sent by UAS, the UAC should accommodate receiving the
altered PRACK with higher CSeq without expecting it to trigger a 481
response (open issue).
NOTE: Deprecation of the usage of offer in PRACK may be another
solution. As the precondition mechanism specification [RFC3262]
explicitly shows a usage of sending offer in PRACK, its
deprecation could cause backward compatibility issues.
6.2. Commit/Rollback of Offer/Answer on Unsuccessful re-INVITE
Transaction
When a re-INVITE transaction fails, the dialog remains with the
session bound to it. The issue here is: what is the session status
if an offer/answer exchange has been completed (if a session
description has been sent in a reliable provisional response to the
re-INVITE request), or if subsequent offer/answer exchanges have
taken place (using UPDATE or PRACK transactions), before the re-
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
INVITE transaction is terminated with a final error response (Figure
6). One option is to take those offer/answer exchanges not committed
yet and to make the session status rollback to the one before re-
INVITE transaction was initiated. Another option is to take those
exchanges committed and to keep the session status as it is even
after re-INVITE fails. There is no clear consensus on which one is
the correct behavior.
There are some cases where it is useful to exchange offer(s)/
answer(s) even before re-INVITE completes. The case of adding a new
media (like adding video to audio only session) which requires
permission from the peer through some user interaction is one
example. Precondition procedures can be another case which may
require several offer/answer exchanges in one re-INVITE transaction.
UAC UAS
| session established |
|<===================>|
| |
| F1 re-INVITE (SDP) |
|-------------------->|
| F2 1xx-rel (SDP) |
|<--------------------|
| F3 PRACK | <- PRACK request may include new offer
|-------------------->| and can complete the offer/answer with
| F4 2xx PRA | the answer in 2xx PRACK response.
|<--------------------|
| | <- UPDATE method can update the session
| | status before receiving the final
| F5 4xx/5xx/6xx INV | response to re-INVITE request (F1).
|<--------------------|
| F6 ACK |
|-------------------->| Issue: What is the correct session
| | status after re-INVITE transaction.
Figure 6 Commit/Rollback Issue with re-INVITE transaction
To make bad things worse, if a new offer from UAC and the final
response to re-INVITE are sent at nearly the same time, the UAS can
not know whether this new offer was sent before or after UAC received
the final failure response (Figure 7). Note that the ACK request to
the failure response is sent hop-by-hop basis, therefore even after
receiving the ACK request, UAS can not make sure that UPDATE request
was sent after the final response had been reached to the other end.
Sending a new UPDATE request from UAC to synchronize the status
anytime after the re-INVITE fails may be a good option. This
solution, however, requires that the UPDATE method be supported by
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
both ends and needs care to avoid flapping when each end tries to
advertise their different views of the session status.
The proper handling of this issue is undefined by existing standards.
Resolution is beyond the scope of this document, and will require a
new normative document.
UAC UAS
| session established |
|<===================>|
| |
| F1 re-INVITE (SDP) |
|-------------------->|
| F2 1xx-rel (SDP) |
|<--------------------|
| F3 PRACK |
|-------------------->|
| F4 2xx PRA |
|<--------------------|
| |
|UPDATE(SDP) 4xx INV |
|---------\ /--------|
| \/ |
| /\ |
|<--------/ \------->|
| |
Figure 7 Commit/Rollback Issue with Race Condition
6.3. Offer in a Reliable Response
In RFC 3261, it is stated that when an INVITE is sent without an
offer, the first reliable response MUST contain an offer. There was
discussion on whether this rule can be loosened up. There is no
clear explanation why this restriction is defined. However, this
rule will be left as it is, unless the strong necessity to loosen it
up is raised in the future.
6.4. Requesting Hold while already on Hold
RFC 3264, section 8.4, contains procedures for putting a unicast
media stream on hold. Of particular note, it states:
"If the stream to be placed on hold was previously a recvonly
media stream, it is placed on hold by marking it inactive."
Section 5.3 of the current document makes a recommendation for this
case which conflicts with that, and explains why. Some concerns have
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
been raised that such a recommendation is invalid because RFC 3264 is
normative on this subject.
This document takes the position that Section 8.4 of RFC 3264 is non-
normative, and so may be overridden. It is further recommended that
RFC 3264 be revised to avoid the confusion.
7. Add New Offer/Answer Usage in SIP
This document recommends against the addition of new offer/answer
methods using SIP. However, it may be necessary to define new offer/
answer exchange methods as SIP extensions evolve. This section
recommends some things that should be taken into considerations in
that case.
7.1. Explicit Usage
New method definitions should define offer/answer usage explicitly
without any ambiguity.
7.2. Rejection of an Offer
New method definitions should define how to reject an offer where
possible.
7.3. Backward Compatibility
New methods must keep backward compatibility.
7.4. Exceptional Case Handling
New methods should take care of how to handle exceptional cases,
message crossing case and glare case.
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
9. Security Considerations
There are not any security issues beyond the referenced RFCs.
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
10. Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Christer Holmberg, Rajeev Seth,
Nataraju A B, Byron Campen and Jonathan Rosenberg for their thorough
reviews and comments. Many of their suggestions and ideas are
incorporated to complete this document.
11. References
11.1. 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.
11.2. 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-15 (work in progress),
February 2008.
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft SIP Usage of the Offer/Answer Model January 2009
Authors' Addresses
Takuya Sawada
KDDI Corporation
3-10-10, Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo
Japan
Email: tu-sawada@kddi.com
Paul H. Kyzivat
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
Email: pkyzivat@cisco.com
Sawada & Kyzivat Expires July 5, 2009 [Page 26]