Sergio Moya

@vkosuri I think you need to check AsyncAPI spec first at https://www.asyncapi.com/docs/reference/specification/v2.4.0. You would need know what Channels, Operations and Messages you have, as well as the server to get...

Relates to https://github.com/asyncapi/spec/pull/718 (not the same)

It is not very clear to me, by the RFC, that informal URN namespaces should be registered as they already have the `:urn{1-7}` assigned: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8141#section-5.2 and https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml#urn-namespaces-2 Are you sure...

I don't get why we are having those conflicts here. I expect these merges to apply without conflicts as there are no changes in this branch either.

> > as there are no changes in this branch either > > There are changes. In this branch, for instance, the examples are already "migrated" to version 3.0.0 and...

@dedoussis are you happy championing this one as you mentioned in the past?

@fmvilas what about this one? Do we want to move it forward or rather stale it finally?

In the case https://github.com/asyncapi/spec/issues/618 moves forward, would this issue be considered as fixed? cc @fmvilas

PR's have been created: - https://github.com/asyncapi/spec/pull/682 - https://github.com/asyncapi/spec-json-schemas/pull/146

As per [asyncapi/spec-json-schemas#146 (comment)](https://github.com/asyncapi/spec-json-schemas/pull/146#issuecomment-1016290582), we won't include this change in `2.3.0` but rather in `3.0.0`.