interoperability issue with 'lifekbytes'

["Arun" <arun_mc@intotoinc.com>]

 Hi,

  We are frequently encountering interoperability = problems
   with 'lifekbytes' configuration. Different vendors = accept/implement
   different ways. Having consistent method mentioned in the
  = standards  will help eliminating/reducing the mis-interpretation.
  Any = feedback on  following interoperability issue from WG
  is appreciated.

   Security Gateway1--------------------Security = Gateway2

  Admin at SG1 configured the IPSEC security policy
  = indicating that 'lifekbytes' is not expected.
  SG2 sends QM SA = payload  with lifekbytes attribute with some
  value. Should SG1 accept = the SA  payload OR should it deny
  the SA payload.

  We feel that, since local admin made a choice that  lifekbytes
  is not required/expected, it should deny the SA  negotiation.
  What is the right thing to do? Also, we feel that = by  having
  consistent configuration on both ends will eliminate = the 
  confusion.

  Related question:
  What happens when SG1 starts the = quick  mode?
  Should SG2 deny the negotiation as it expected = lifekbytes 
  attribute, but there is no 'lifekbytes' attribute coming from = SG1?

  We feel that, for both cases to work, it is better to = have
   same configuration on both ends so that it works consistently
  = and give  choice to the administrators.

Thanks in advance,
Arun