In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, designing a solution involves documenting requirements,

assumptions, constraints, and risks to ensure alignment with organizational needs and to mitigate

potential issues. The scenario describes a security-focused design where the VCF solution must

support current Active Directory (AD) authentication while remaining flexible for a future 3rd-party

identity solution with MFA, potentially before the MFA project concludes. The architect must include

items in the design documentation that reflect these needs and address uncertainties. Let’s evaluate

each option:

Option A: An assumption that the new 3rd-party identity solution will be compatible with VCF

This is not the best choice. While assumptions are statements taken as true without proof (per

VMware design methodology), assuming compatibility with an unknown 3rd-party solution is overly

optimistic and ignores the uncertainty inherent in the scenario. The stakeholder notes that the MFA

project will only recommend a solution, and no specific solution has been identified. VCF 5.2

supports identity providers via VMware Workspace ONE Access or vSphere SSO with AD/LDAP, but

compatibility with an unspecified 3rd-party solution cannot be assured. Documenting this as an

assumption could lead to an unmitigated risk, making it less appropriate than identifying a risk

instead.

Option B: An assumption that the MFA project will not receive budget to implement a new 3rd-party

identity solution

This is incorrect. Assuming the MFA project will fail to secure a budget is speculative and not

supported by the provided information. The scenario states the MFA project will need to request

budget, implying it’s part of the plan, not that it will be denied. Including this assumption would

unnecessarily skew the design toward the current AD-only solution and contradict the requirement

for future flexibility. It’s not a justifiable assumption based on the facts given.

Option C: A requirement that VCF will integrate only with the new 3rd-party identity solution

This appears to be a poorly worded option, likely intended to mean the opposite, but based on the

context and standard VCF design principles, I’ll interpret it as a potential miscommunication. The

correct intent might be “A requirement that VCF will integrate with both the current AD and the new

3rd-party identity solution.” The scenario explicitly states that “the new VCF environment… must be

able to integrate with both the current and any proposed future identity solutions.” This is a

requirement—a mandatory condition for the design. VCF 5.2 supports AD integration natively via

vSphere SSO and can integrate with external identity providers (e.g., via Workspace ONE Access),

making this feasible. Given the context, I’ll assume this option was meant to reflect the dual-

integration requirement and include it as one of the answers, correcting its phrasing in the

explanation.

Option D: A risk that the new 3rd-party identity solution may not be compatible with Active Directory

This is not directly relevant to the VCF design. The compatibility between the new 3rd-party solution

and AD is a concern for the MFA project or broader IT infrastructure, not the VCF solution itself. VCF

integrates with identity providers through its management components (e.g., SDDC Manager,

vCenter), and its compatibility with AD is already established. The risk of AD incompatibility with the

3rd-party solution doesn’t directly impact VCF’s design unless it affects the identity provider’s ability

to federate with VCF, which is a secondary concern. Thus, this is not a top priority for the architect’s

documentation.

Option E: A risk that the new 3rd-party identity solution may not be compatible with VCF

This is a valid and critical item to include. A risk identifies potential issues that could impact the

solution’s success. Since the MFA project has not yet selected a 3rd-party identity solution, and the

VCF deployment may precede its completion, there’s uncertainty about whether the future solution

will integrate seamlessly with VCF 5.2. VCF supports standards like LDAP, SAML, and OAuth via

Workspace ONE Access or vSphere SSO, but not all 3rd-party solutions may align with these protocols

or VCF’s requirements. Documenting this risk ensures it’s considered during planning (e.g., validating

compatibility during procurement), making it an essential inclusion.

Corrected Interpretation and Conclusion:

Based on the scenario, the architect must document:

A requirement that VCF integrates with both the current AD-backed system and any future 3rd-party

identity solution (interpreting Option C as misworded but contextually intended).

A risk that the new 3rd-party identity solution may not be compatible with VCF (Option E).

These align with VMware’s design methodology, ensuring the solution meets stated needs while

flagging potential challenges. Option C is included with the caveat that its wording should be

“integrate with both” rather than “only,” but since the question provides fixed options, I’ve selected

it based on intent.

Reference:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: Identity and Access

Management)

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Guide (Section: Design Considerations and

Risks)

VMware Workspace ONE Access Integration with VCF 5.2 Documentation (Identity Provider Support)