Sergio Moya

I agree with some folks from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoKEet0jcSc to **not** having a Metadata Object but have all those fields inline on those objects that don't have them. Regarding implementation on the...

> We don't have id on each object, please don't look on mentioned issue :) By `id` I'm referring to `operationId` and `messageId`

> @smoya > > But `operationId` and `messageId` are unique id for object, `name` is a name, you can have multiple these same names in spec and it should be...

> @smoya > > > Now let's think, Isn't the messageId right made for that purpose? > > I don't think so. As I wrote, id should be one in...

> @smoya I don't know. I'm not the creator of this spec :trollface: Let's ping them cc @fmvilas.

@jonaslagoni I've updated the description of the PR and title to simplify the concept. It's just about grouping servers. A way of grouping servers under a group name, that can...

> I'm surprised you didn't play the "environment" card. Yeah, after the simplification I made, this is mostly the same as https://github.com/asyncapi/spec/issues/623 (different fashion). I like the tags approach. In...

@fmvilas there is also this proposal https://github.com/asyncapi/spec/issues/527 which won't be able to take profit of the tags mechanism, so it will require a dedicated field (I mean, we could somehow...

> I think they're unrelated. This proposal is suggesting a way to prefix channel names, which I'd highly discourage now that we can associate channels with servers. And in v3...

> I would prefer to go in the direction of something more generic like the mentioned tags, but there is one problem, because currently tags work like classic tags, so...