Henry Andrews

> I think we should remove all mentions of RFC6570 from the sections on path templates and server URL templates and solely refer to RFC3986. @ralfhandl do you just mean...

@baywet ah, right it used to be mentioned more but we've moved more and more of those to the appendix. I think it still gets mentioned in a definition of...

I think this is a "yup, it's dangerous, but it's an advance feature and you're expected to know what you're doing, and if you do something ambiguous, the results are...

See also: * #3286 which was only closed because it was suggested to try an `x-audience` field before adding something to 3.2. The closure is not a rejection on the...

I'm guessing we didn't do this in the patch releases because technically it is an added feature, and then we just overlooked it for 3.2. Adding to the 3.3 milestone.

@dberlind I can't vouch for an actual in-the-wild OpenAPI spec vs API version mismatch, but if I made an error in the spec I would release a new spec version...

@OAI/tsc this was deemed out-of-scope but not closed, should it be? If not, is it considered in-scope now or is there still a question to resolve?

> According to Json Schema specification, type array which has null will also represent Optional input. This is not actually correct. A type array which has `null` in it means...

> I just think that this library should also conform JsonSchema v4 specification also If there's any measure of conformance, I strongly recommend measuring against draft-06 or later, not draft-04....

@karenetheridge that's [correct for 3.0](https://spec.openapis.org/oas/v3.0.4.html#relative-references-in-urls). But not 3.1 or 3.2. OAS 3.0.x does not make a distinction between OAD URIs and API URLs. That was introduced in 3.1.0, and clarfied...