How to handle Bearer Authentication using a JMS Header?

[adamretter]

The securitySchemes mechanism of AsyncAPI 2.6.0 spec does not seem compatible with the idea of sending an Auth token (e.g. similar to Bearer Authentication) in a header when using the JMS protocol. The 2.6.0 version of the spec seems to restrict this to HTTP only for some reason.

I would like to be able to achieve something like:

securitySchemes:
  bearerAuthentication:
    type: apiKey
    in: header
    name: AuthenticationToken
    description: Bearer Authentication Token should be provided in the `AuthenticationToken` header.

Thoughts on how I can achieve this, or should I contribute an update to the spec?

[github-actions[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity :sleeping:

It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation.

There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model.

Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here.

Thank you for your patience :heart:

[adamretter]

I would still like a response to this if possible?

[github-actions[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity :sleeping:

It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation.

There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model.

Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here.

Thank you for your patience :heart:

[adamretter]

Can someone reply to this please?

[github-actions[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity :sleeping:

It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation.

There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model.

Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here.

Thank you for your patience :heart:

[adamretter]

Id still like some feedback on this