On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 14:45 +0300, Jānis Rukšāns wrote:
> > Since the subscriber knows when the subscription is due to expire, and
> > knows that the notifier will send no further notifications after that
> > point, the subscriber knows exactly when the subscription expires, and
> > after that point, not to expect any more NOTIFYs.
>
> In this case the final NOTIFY (3265bis 4.2.1.4 2nd paragraph) seems to
> be redundant, since the subscriber already knows that the subscription
> has expired.
Yes, it does seem to be redundant. I suspect that it was specified to
be consistent with other termination cases (when the subscriber is not
expecting termination) and to ensure that there are no inconsistencies
when a one-time subscription ("Expires: 0") is made (as the one NOTIFY
sent is both the initiation NOTIFY and the termination NOTIFY).
Dale
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
