MENU
A Jabber user is being prompted to trust the Expressway-E certificate when using Mobile and Remote Access. The administrator has validated that the Expressway-E certificate is being trusted by the machine running the Jabber client.
What else can be done to solve this problem?
Suggested Answer: A, E
Get Premium 300-820 Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
37 comments · newest first
OL
Oliva
11 months ago
Wait, changing the FQDN? That sounds risky!
CH
Christa
11 months ago
I agree with B, it's the best option here.
KA
Kaitlyn
11 months ago
C seems a bit extreme, doesn't it?
GR
Graham
11 months ago
I think A could work too, but not sure.
KE
Keneth
12 months ago
B is definitely the way to go!
BR
Brendan
12 months ago
I’m a bit confused about the CSR part; I thought creating a new one was more for different scenarios, not just trust issues. So, option A seems less likely.
LE
Lezlie
1 year ago
I practiced a similar question where including the registration domain helped with trust issues, so I feel like option B might be the answer here.
KR
Kris
1 year ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I think changing the FQDN could cause more issues than it solves. Maybe option D isn't the best?
CH
Charlene
1 year ago
I remember something about SAN fields being crucial for certificate validation, so maybe option B is the right choice?
FR
Fredric
1 year ago
Changing the domain name or FQDN of the Expressway seems risky and could have broader implications. I'll want to be really sure that's necessary before going that route.
TH
Thurman
1 year ago
Okay, including the Unified Communications Manager registration domain in the certificate as a SAN seems like a good potential solution. I'll make sure to understand how to properly configure that.
MA
Maile
1 year ago
Hmm, the question mentions the administrator has already validated the certificate, so I'm not sure if creating a new CSR is the right approach. I'll need to think this through.
AL
Alethea
1 year ago
This looks like a tricky certificate issue. I'll need to carefully review the options and think through the implications of each one.
FR
Frederic
1 year ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. I know Azure Monitor and Log Analytics are related to monitoring, but I'm not sure if they're the right tools for this specific task. I'll need to think it through carefully.
HE
Helene
1 year ago
Hmm, this looks tricky. I'll need to carefully read through the code and think about how the `Person` object and its properties are being used.
AR
Arlean
1 year ago
Okay, I think I've got this. Based on the exhibit, Option C looks like the right choice - it configures the interface for both voice and data by enabling QoS and setting the appropriate trust state. I'm feeling confident about this one.
GL
Glennis
1 year ago
I'm a bit confused by the options here. I'll need to review my notes on VPNs to make sure I choose the right one.
TE
Terrilyn
1 year ago
Wait, is this a Jabber user or a Jibber-jabber user? I'm getting mixed signals here. Either way, let's hope they trust the Expressway-E certificate, or else they'll be stuck in a Jibber-jabber loop!
WY
Wynell
1 year ago
I wonder if the Expressway-E certificate was generated using a self-signed CA. If so, that could be the root of the problem. But yeah, option B seems like the way to go.
WH
Whitley
1 year ago
Annett: Let's go ahead and try that solution then.
DE
Deane
1 year ago
User 3: That might solve the problem. It's worth a try.
AN
Annett
1 year ago
User 2: Yeah, that could be the issue. Option B suggests including the Cisco Unified Communications Manager registration domain in the certificate.
BA
Barrie
1 year ago
User 1: Have you checked if the Expressway-E certificate was generated using a self-signed CA?
DY
Dyan
1 year ago
Creating a new CSR with updated SAN information could work, but it might be overkill. Option B looks like the most straightforward solution.
LE
Leota
1 year ago
C: That should solve the issue. Let me know if it works!
AL
Aleta
1 year ago
B: No, I haven't. I'll give that a try.
LA
Lashunda
1 year ago
A: Have you tried including the Cisco Unified Communications Manager registration domain in the Expressway-E certificate as a SAN?
CH
Chauncey
1 year ago
Hmm, I'm not sure about that. Changing the domain name or the FQDN of the Expressway doesn't seem like the right solution here.
HE
Hermila
1 year ago
C) Change the domain name.
RO
Ronnie
1 year ago
B) Include Cisco Unified Communications Manager registration domain in the Expressway-E certificate as a SAN.
AR
Ardella
1 year ago
A) Create a new CSR with new information on the SAN field.
OR
Oretha
2 years ago
I think B is the correct answer. The Expressway-E certificate should include the Cisco Unified Communications Manager registration domain as a SAN to ensure proper trust verification.
CO
Cory
1 year ago
That makes sense, it's important for the certificate to have all the necessary information for proper trust verification.
DO
Dominque
1 year ago
I agree, including the Cisco Unified Communications Manager registration domain as a SAN in the Expressway-E certificate should solve the issue.
TY
Tyra
2 years ago
I'm not sure about option B. I think creating a new CSR with new information on the SAN field (option A) might also work. It's worth considering all options before making a decision.
PO
Pok
2 years ago
I agree with Annette. Option B seems like the most logical choice. It's important to have all the necessary information in the certificate to ensure trust.
AN
Annette
2 years ago
I think option B is the best solution. Including the Cisco Unified Communications Manager registration domain in the Expressway-E certificate as a SAN should help solve the problem.