[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02                                                      
Internet Engineering Task Force                                   SIP WG
Internet Draft                                              G. Camarillo
                                                          H. Schulzrinne
                                                     Columbia University
June 29, 2003
Expires: December, 2003

                Early Media and Ringing Tone Generation
                  in the Session Initiation Protocol


   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   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-

   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

   To view the list Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see


   This document describes how to manage early media in SIP using two
   models; the gateway model and the application server model. It also
   describes which inputs need to be taken into consideration to define
   local policies for ringing tone generation.

G. Camarillo et. al.                                          [Page 1]

Internet Draft                    SIP                      June 29, 2003

                           Table of Contents

   1          Introduction ........................................    3
   2          Session Establishment in SIP ........................    3
   3          The Gateway Model ...................................    4
   3.1        Forking .............................................    5
   3.2        Ringing Tone Generation .............................    6
   3.3        Absence of an Early Media Indicator .................    7
   3.4        Applicability of the Gateway Model ..................    8
   4          The Application Server Model ........................    8
   4.1        In-Band Versus Out-of-Band Session Progress
              Information .........................................    9
   5          Alert-Info Header Field .............................    9
   6          Acknowledgments .....................................   10
   7          Authors' Addresses ..................................   10
   8          Bibliography ........................................   10

G. Camarillo et. al.                                          [Page 2]

Internet Draft                    SIP                      June 29, 2003

1 Introduction

   Early media refers to media (e.g., audio and/or video) that is
   exchanged before a particular session is accepted by the called user.
   Early media within a particular SIP dialog takes place from the
   moment the initial INVITE is sent until the UAS generates a final
   response. Early media can be unidirectional or bi-directional and can
   be generated by the caller or/and the callee. Typical examples of
   early media generated by the callee are ringing tone and
   announcements (e.g., queuing status). Early media generated by the
   caller typically consist of voice commands or DTMF tones to drive

   The basic SIP spec [1] only supports very simple early media. In
   order to support fully-featured early media, UAs need to implement
   some extensions in addition to the basic SIP spec. This document
   describes two models to implement early media and the extensions
   needed in each model.

   Section 2 describes the offer/answer model in absence of early media.
   Section  3 introduces the gateway model. In this model, the early
   media session is established using the early dialog established by
   the original INVITE. Section 3.1, Section 3.2 and Section 3.4
   describe the limitations of the gateway model and the scenarios where
   it is appropriate to use this model. Section 4 introduces the
   application server model, which resolves some of the issues present
   in the gateway model. Section 5 discusses the interactions between
   the Alter-Info header field in both early media models.

2 Session Establishment in SIP

   Before presenting both early media models, we will briefly summarize
   how session establishment works in SIP. This will let us keep
   separate features that are intrinsic to SIP (e.g., media being played
   before the 200 (OK) to avoid media clipping) from early media

   SIP [1] uses the offer/answer model [2] to negotiate session
   parameters. One of the user agents - the offerer - prepares a session
   description that is called the offer. The other user agent - the
   answerer - responds with another session description called the
   answer. This two-way handshake allows both user agents to agree upon
   the session parameters to be used to exchange media.

   The idea behind the offer/answer model is to decouple the
   offer/answer exchange from the messages used to transport the session
   descriptions. For example, the offer can be sent in an INVITE request
   and the answer can arrive in the 200 (OK) response for that INVITE.

G. Camarillo et. al.                                          [Page 3]

Internet Draft                    SIP                      June 29, 2003

   Or, alternatively, the offer can be sent in the 200 (OK) for an empty
   INVITE and the answer be sent in the ACK. When reliable provisional
   responses [3] and UPDATE requests [4] are used, there are many more
   possible ways to exchange offers and answers.

   Media clipping occurs when the user (or the machine generating media)
   believes that the media session is already established but the
   establishment process has not finished yet. The user starts speaking
   (i.e., generating media) and the first few syllables or even the
   first few words are lost.

   When the offer/answer exchange takes place in the 200 (OK) response
   and in the ACK, media clipping is unavoidable. The called user starts
   speaking at the same time as the 200 (OK) is sent, but the UAS cannot
   send any media until the answer from the UAC arrives in the ACK.

   However, SIP provides a solution to avoid media clipping in the most
   common offer/answer exchange; an INVITE with an offer and a 200 (OK)
   with an answer. SIP signalling and media packets typically traverse
   different paths. Therefore, the UAC cannot count on the reception of
   the 200 (OK) to start playing out media for the caller; media packets
   could arrive before the 200 (OK) response. The UAC needs to be ready
   to play incoming media packets as soon as it sends its offer.

   Another form of media clipping (not related to early media either)
   occurs in the caller->callee direction. If the callee picks up and
   starts speaking, the UAS will send a 200 (OK) response with an answer
   and the first media packets in parallel. If the first media packets
   arrive to the UAC before the answer, and the caller starts speaking
   as well, the UAC will not be able to send media until the 2xx
   response from the UAS arrives.

3 The Gateway Model

   As describes in Section 2, SIP uses the offer/answer model to
   negotiate session parameters. An offer/answer exchange that takes
   place before a final response for the INVITE is sent establishes an
   "early" media session. Early media sessions terminate when a final
   response for the INVITE is sent. If the final response is a 2xx, the
   early media session transitions to a regular media session. If the
   final response is a non-2xx final response, the early media session
   is simply terminated.

   Media exchanged within an early media session is, not surprisingly,
   referred to as early media. The gateway model consists of managing
   early media sessions using offer/answer exchanges in reliable
   provisional responses, PRACKs and UPDATEs.

G. Camarillo et. al.                                          [Page 4]

Internet Draft                    SIP                      June 29, 2003

   The gateway model presents serious limitations in presence of
   forking, as described in Section 3.1. Therefore, its use in only
   acceptable where the UA cannot distinguish between early and regular
   media, as described in Section 3.4. In any other situation (the
   majority of UAs), it is strongly recommended that the application
   server model described in Section 4 is used instead.

3.1 Forking

   In the absence of forking, assuming that the initial INVITE contains
   an offer, the gateway model does not introduce media clipping.
   Following normal SIP procedures, the UAC is ready to play any
   incoming media as soon as it sends the initial offer in the INVITE.
   The UAS sends the answer in a reliable provisional response and
   starts sending media right away. Even if the first media packets
   arrive to the UAS before the 1xx response, the UAS will play them.

        Note that, in some situations, the UAC does need to receive
        the answer before being able to play any media. UAs in such
        a situation (e.g., QoS, media authorization or media
        encryption is required) use preconditions to avoid media

   However, if the INVITE forks, the gateway model may introduce media
   clipping. This happens when the UAC receives different answers to its
   offer in several provisional responses from different UASs. The UAC
   has to deal with bandwidth limitations and early media session

   If the UAC receives early media from different UASs, it needs to
   present it to the user. If the early media consists of audio, playing
   several audio streams to the user at the same time can be confusing.
   Other media types (e.g., video), on the other hand, can be presented
   to the user at the same time. The UAC can, for example, build a
   mosaic with the different inputs.

   However, even with media types that can be played at the same time to
   the user, if the UAC has limited bandwidth, it will not be able to
   receive early media from all the different UASs at the same time.
   Therefore, many times, the UAC needs to choose a single early media
   session and "mute" the rest of them sending UPDATE requests.

        It is difficult to decide which early media session carry
        more important information from the caller's perspective.
        In fact, in some scenarios, the UA cannot even correlate
        media packets with their particular SIP early dialog.
        Therefore, UACs typically pick up one early dialog randomly
        and mute the rest.

G. Camarillo et. al.                                          [Page 5]

Internet Draft                    SIP                      June 29, 2003

   If one of the early media sessions that was muted transitions to a
   regular media session (i.e., the UAS sends a 2xx response), media
   clipping is likely to appear. The UAC typically sends an UPDATE with
   a new offer (upon reception of the 200 OK for the INVITE) to unmute
   the media session. The UAS cannot send any media until it receives
   the offer from the UAC. Therefore, if the caller starts speaking
   before the offer from the UAC is received, his words will get lost.

        Having the UAS send the UPDATE to unmute the media session
        (instead of the UAC) does not avoid media clipping in the
        backward direction and it causes possible race conditions.

3.2 Ringing Tone Generation

   In the PSTN, telephone switches typically play ringing tones to the
   caller to indicate that the callee is being alerted. When, where and
   how these ringing tones are generated has been standardized (i.e.,
   the local exchange of the callee generates a standardized ringing
   tone while the callee is being alerted). A standardized approach to
   provide this type of feedback for the user makes sense in a
   homogeneous environment such as the PSTN, where all the terminals
   have a similar user interface.

   This homogeneity is not found among SIP user agents. SIP user agents
   have different capabilities, different user interfaces and may be
   used to establish sessions that do not involve audio at all. Because
   of this, the way a SIP UA provides the user with information about
   the progress of session establishment is a matter of local policy.
   For example, a UA with a GUI may choose to display a message on the
   screen when the callee is being alerted while another UA may choose
   to show a picture of a phone ringing instead. Many SIP UAs choose to
   imitate the user interface of the PSTN phones. They provide a ringing
   tone to the caller when the callee is being alerted. Such a UAC is
   supposed to generate ringing tones locally for its user as long as no
   early media is received from the UAS. If the UAS generates early
   media (e.g., an announcement or a special ringing tone), the UAC is
   supposed to play it rather than generating the ringing tone locally.

   The problem is that, sometimes, it is not an easy task for a UAC to
   know whether it should generate local ringing or it will be receiving
   early media. A UAS can send early media without using reliable
   provisional responses (very simple UASs do that) or it can send an
   answer in a reliable provisional response without any intention of
   sending early media (this is the case when preconditions are used).
   Therefore, by only looking at the SIP signalling, a UAC cannot be
   sure whether or not there will be early media for a particular
   session. The UAC needs to check if media packets are arriving at a
   given moment.

G. Camarillo et. al.                                          [Page 6]

Internet Draft                    SIP                      June 29, 2003

        An implementation could even choose to look at the contents
        of the media packets, since they could carry only silence
        or comfort noise.

   With this in mind, a UAC should develop its local policy regarding
   local ringing generation. For example, a POTS-like SIP UA could
   implement the following local policy:

        1.   Unless a 180 (Ringing) response is received, never generate
             local ringing.

        2.   If a 180 (Ringing) has been received but there are no
             incoming media packets, generate local ringing.

        3.   If a 180 (Ringing) has been received and there are incoming
             media packets, play them and do not generate local ringing.

        Note that a 180 (Ringing) response means that the callee is
        being alerted, and a UAS should send such a response if the
        callee is being alerted, regardless of the status of the
        early media session.

   At first sight, such a policy may look difficult to implement in
   decomposed UAs (i.e., media gateway controller and media gateway).
   However, this policy is the same as the one described in Section 2,
   which must be implemented by any UA; any UA should play incoming
   media packets (and stop local ringing tone generation if it was being
   performed) in order to avoid media clipping, even if the 200 (OK)
   response has not arrived. Therefore, the tools to implement this
   early media policy are available already to any UA that uses SIP.

   Note that, while it is not desirable to standardize a common local
   policy to be followed by every SIP UA, a particular subset of more or
   less homogeneous SIP UAs could use the same local policy by
   convention. Examples of such subsets of SIP UAs may be "all the
   PSTN/SIP gateways" or "every 3G IMS terminal". However, defining the
   particular common policy that such groups of SIP devices may use is
   outside the scope of this document.

3.3 Absence of an Early Media Indicator

   SIP, as opposed to other signalling protocols, does not provide an
   early media indicator. That is, there is no information about the
   presence or absence of early media in SIP. Such an indicator could be
   potentially used to avoid generation of local ringing tone by the UAC
   when UAS intends to provide in-band ringing tone or some type of
   announcement. However, due to the way SIP works, such an indicator
   would, in the majority of the cases, be of little use.

G. Camarillo et. al.                                          [Page 7]

Internet Draft                    SIP                      June 29, 2003

   One important reason that would limit the benefit of a potential
   early media indicator is the loosely coupling between SIP signalling
   and the media path. SIP signalling traverse a different path than the
   media. The media path is typically optimized to reduce the end-to-end
   delay (e.g., minimum number of intermediaries) whereas the SIP
   signalling path typically traverses a number of proxies providing
   different services for the session. Due to that reason, it is very
   likely that the media packets with early media reach the UAC before
   any SIP message which could contain an early media indicator.

   However, sometimes, SIP responses arrive at the UAC before any media
   packet. There are situations when the UAS intends to send early media
   but cannot do it straight away. For example, UAs using ICE [5] and
   ALT [6] may need to exchange several STUN messages before being able
   to exchange media. In this situations, an early media indicator would
   keep the UAC from generating local ringing tone during this time.
   However, while the early media is not arriving to the UAC, the user
   would not be aware of the fact that the remote user is being alerted,
   even though a 180 (Ringing) had been received. Therefore, a better
   solution would be to apply local ringing tone until the early media
   packets could be sent from the UAS to the UAC. This solution does not
   require any early media indicator.

        Note that migrations from local ringing tone to early media
        at the UAC happen in the presence of forking as well; one
        UAS sends a 180 (Ringing) response, and later, another UAS
        starts sending early media.

3.4 Applicability of the Gateway Model

   Section 3 described some of the limitations of the gateway model. It
   produces media clipping in forking scenarios and requires media
   detection to generate local ringing properly. These issues are
   addressed by the application server model, described in Section 4,
   which is the recommended way of generating early media that is not
   continuous with the regular media that will be generated during the

   The gateway model is, therefore, acceptable in situations where the
   UA cannot distinguish between early media and regular media. A PSTN
   gateway is an example of this type of situation. The PSTN gateway
   receives media from the PSTN over a circuit, and sends it to the IP
   network. The gateway is not aware of the contents of the media, and
   it does not exactly know when the transition from early to regular
   media takes place. From the PSTN perspective, the circuit is a
   continuous source of media.

4 The Application Server Model

G. Camarillo et. al.                                          [Page 8]

Internet Draft                    SIP                      June 29, 2003

   The application server model consists of having the UAS behave as any
   other application server in the session [7]. The UAC includes a Join
   header field in the initial INVITE. In order to send early media, the
   UAS establishes a new dialog by sending a new INVITE to the URI in
   the Join header field.

   Sending early media using a different dialog than the one used for
   sending regular media helps avoid media clipping in case of forking.
   The UAC can reject or mute new invitations for early media without
   muting the sessions that will carry media when the original INVITE is
   accepted. The UAC can give priority to media received over the latter
   sessions. This way, the application server model achieves a smooth
   transition from early to regular media.

   Having a separate dialog for early media also helps UAs decide
   whether or not local ringing should be generated. If a new dialog to
   send early media is established, and that dialog contains at least an
   audio stream, the UAC can assume that there will be incoming early
   media and it can then avoid generating local ringing.

        An alternative model would consist of adding a new stream
        labeled as "early media" to the original session between
        the UAC and the UAS using an UPDATE, instead of
        establishing a new session. We have chosen to establish a
        new session to be coherent with the mechanism used by
        application servers that are NOT co-located with the UAS.
        This way, the UAS uses the same mechanism as any other
        application server in the network to interact with the UAC.

4.1 In-Band Versus Out-of-Band Session Progress Information

   Note that, even when the application server model is used, a UA will
   have to choose which early media sessions are muted and which ones
   are rendered to the user. In order to make this choice easier to UAs,
   it is strongly recommended that information that is not essential for
   the session is not transmitted using early media. For instance, UAs
   should not use early media to send special ringing tones. SIP already
   provides a means to inform the remote user about session
   establishment progress which does not cause any of the problems
   associated with early media; the status code and the reason phrase in
   provisional responses.

5 Alert-Info Header Field

   The Alert-Info header field allows specifying an alternative ringing
   tone to the UAC. This header field tells the UAC which tone should be
   played in case local ringing is generated, but it does not tell the
   UAC when to generate local ringing. A UAC should follow the rules

G. Camarillo et. al.                                          [Page 9]

Internet Draft                    SIP                      June 29, 2003

   described above for ringing tone generation in both models. If, after
   following those rules, the UAC decides to play local ringing, it can
   then use the Alert-Info header field to generate it.

6 Acknowledgments

   Jon Peterson provided useful ideas on the separation between the
   gateway model and the application server model.

   Paul Kyzivat, Christer Holmberg, Bill Marshall, Francois Audet, John
   Hearty, Adam Roach and Rohan Mahy provided useful comments and

7 Authors' Addresses

   Gonzalo Camarillo
   Advanced Signalling Research Lab.
   FIN-02420 Jorvas
   electronic mail:  Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com

   Henning Schulzrinne
   Dept. of Computer Science
   Columbia University 1214 Amsterdam Avenue, MC 0401
   New York, NY 10027
   electronic mail:  schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu

8 Bibliography

   [1] J. Rosenberg, H. Schulzrinne, G. Camarillo, A. R. Johnston, J.
   Peterson, R. Sparks, M. Handley, and E. Schooler, "SIP: session
   initiation protocol," RFC 3261, Internet Engineering Task Force, June

   [2] J. Rosenberg and H. Schulzrinne, "An offer/answer model with
   session description protocol (SDP)," RFC 3264, Internet Engineering
   Task Force, June 2002.

   [3] J. Rosenberg and H. Schulzrinne, "Reliability of provisional
   responses in session initiation protocol (SIP)," RFC 3262, Internet
   Engineering Task Force, June 2002.

   [4] J. Rosenberg, "The session initiation protocol (SIP) UPDATE
   method," RFC 3311, Internet Engineering Task Force, Oct. 2002.

   [5] J. Rosenberg, "Interactive connectivity establishment (ICE): a

G. Camarillo et. al.                                         [Page 10]

Internet Draft                    SIP                      June 29, 2003

   methodology for nettwork address translator (NAT) traversal for the
   session initiation protocol (SIP)," internet draft, Internet
   Engineering Task Force, Feb.  2003.  Work in progress.

   [6] G. Camarillo and J. Rosenberg, "The alternative semantics for the
   session description protocol grouping framework," internet draft,
   Internet Engineering Task Force, June 2003.  Work in progress.

   [7] J. Rosenberg, "A framework and requirements for application
   interaction in SIP," internet draft, Internet Engineering Task Force,
   Nov. 2002.  Work in progress.

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
   licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
   obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
   proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive

   Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (c) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for

G. Camarillo et. al.                                         [Page 11]

Internet Draft                    SIP                      June 29, 2003

   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an

G. Camarillo et. al.                                         [Page 12]