Jonas Lagoni

I had the same use case as you, and I am just gonna leave the approach I adopted (by using parameters): ```yaml asyncapi: 2.1.0 info: title: test version: 0.0.1 channels:...

My personal opinion at the moment is that trying to support this outside of parameters is too complex. However, I completely agree we need better documentation and examples in the...

@gregmeldrum do you want to champion this? 🙂 Or can we consider this issue as needs champion? 🤔

> @gregmeldrum @jonaslagoni is it something that would be part of `address` from the proposal of new 3.0 spec? It would yes.

> @jonaslagoni making a property required is also a breaking change. If I use an AsyncAPI 2.2.0 document as the input for an AsyncAPI 2.3.0 tool, and we have made...

Honestly, I think this will automatically be picked up for 3.0, as we will need to figure out how bindings still make sense and how they should be handled.

As this issue was just [bought up in the 3.0 spec meeting](https://github.com/asyncapi/community/issues/270 ) when we discussed https://github.com/asyncapi/bindings/issues/113. And as this issue just become something we have to think about for...

@GeraldLoeffler would you have any interest in championing this?

My 5 cents, I fear you might be mixing and matching solutions to problems that have not been raised 😅 1. Are you trying to define a group of related...

Is there a reason we have a `channels` field in the root AsyncAPI object, would it not be enough to define it inside the operation object and components? 🤔 The...