Spec 3.0 Meeting, 16 UTC Wednesday January 19 2022

[asyncapi-bot]

This is the meeting for community member involved in works related to 3.0 release of AsyncAPI Specification.

The meeting takes place bi-weekly on Wednesdays. First and third week every month until release. Recordings from the previous meetings are available in this playlist on YouTube.

This time we meet at 16 UTC

Join this mailing list to get an always-up-to-date invite to the meeting in your calendar. You can also check AsyncAPI Calendar.

Meeting outcome -> #235 (comment)

[derberg]

Join through https://studio.restream.io/guest/ejh3MFh2VtxtaKVadEgFnV_DhG_h-1I?event

[jonaslagoni]

I would like to start the meeting by proposing a format for discussing the agenda items, as I expect there will be quite a few subjects and introductions, having one hour to do as much as possible, we need to have a bit of structure 😅

I would like to update you on the following subjects to the agenda:

• I want to give a quick update on splitting out schema definitions: feat!: split out definitions spec-json-schemas#128
• I want to give a quick update to the many meanings of AsyncAPI just to give some food for thought: The many meanings of an AsyncAPI file spec#628, Defining a collection of applications  spec#658

@magicmatatjahu do you want to give a quick update on your schema format issues? (Maybe just spend 5 minutes introducing them and what you need from others)

@smoya you have split out a lot of the issues revolving around pub/sub confusion, anything you want to give an update on?

@Fannon It is kinda tough to figure out if asyncapi/spec#532 will be a breaking change, I am just pinging you in case it is and you want to spend a few minutes introducing it and what you need to move forward?

I have too many things in my head at the moment, so can't remember further than that, if you have agenda items, please comment below 🙏

[jonaslagoni]

cc @derberg I cant edit the agenda, so you need to do that 😄

[derberg]

@jonaslagoni how about now?

[jonaslagoni]

@jonaslagoni how about now?

Nope.

[jessemenning]

@jonaslagoni I like the proposed topics. I do feel like we first need to have an agreement on:

• what does/can/should AsyncAPI represent (e.g. single application implementation, client interface, application interface, event-driven infrastructure)
• Do AsyncAPI documents need to conform to JSON Schema?
• What are the important things that absolutely need to be in v3 for it to be considered complete?
• What processes will the working group use (since twice weekly meetings unlikely to get us to completion quickly). E.G. how do we divide up the work? What roles will people have?

[derberg]

I added tsc group with Triage rights but guess it is not enough to edit issues. This sucks 😞
We will need to change strategy here @jonaslagoni as I definitely do not want to be your personal issue editor long term 😄

the only solution I see really that issue just talks about meeting in general, like here #208 and rest is added by you and others in comments.

[jonaslagoni]

We will need to change strategy here @jonaslagoni as I definitely do not want to be your personal issue editor long term 😄

I dont see the problem ?

Let's do it this way, before each meeting I copy-paste the issue section and add a brand new comment at the end that includes the agenda and whatnot.

[jonaslagoni]

Good points @jessemenning.

• what does/can/should AsyncAPI represent (e.g. single application implementation, client interface, application interface, event-driven infrastructure)

I guess this falls perfectly under I want to give a quick update to the many meanings of AsyncAPI just to give some food for thought, right?

Do AsyncAPI documents need to conform to JSON Schema?

Adding to the agenda! cc @magicmatatjahu

What are the important things that absolutely need to be in v3 for it to be considered complete?

Good question, adding!

What processes will the working group use (since twice weekly meetings unlikely to get us to completion quickly). E.G. how do we divide up the work? What roles will people have?

Keep in mind this is not a working group per say, at least that is not the intention, anyone is welcome to join and leave as they see fit, it is just a meeting of interested parties that want to work on pushing 3.0 🙂 Since it is the first time we do this, it can easily be that we need to change format later, let's see 🤷 It can always be proposed!

Everything still follows the contribution guidelines each working completely asynchronous where anyone who wants to help out can, with the time they have! So individuals need to become a champions for changes and suggest them 🙂

This meeting is just a good way to stay up to date with the changes, ask what needs champions, discuss difficult subjects that could not be resolved in PR's/issue discussions, etc. We will never take decisions on these meetings, as the consensus needs to be reached in the issue or PRs. However, this is the perfect platform to reach the audience and ask for feedback on proposals 🙂

I plan to do a little introduction in the beginning to lay the foundation. Does that sound like a plan? 🙂

[derberg]

@jonaslagoni 👍🏼 we only need to update the workflow that creates this issue, so it is clear where agenda, notes and recording link ended up

[smoya]

@jonaslagoni I would like to give a short update on the status of asyncapi/spec#618 and a call for help on it :)

[jonaslagoni]

Agenda

Don't wait for the meeting to discuss topics that already have issues. Feel free to comment on them earlier.

1. Q&A - intro the meeting @jonaslagoni
2. Update on splitting out schema definitions - @jonaslagoni - feat!: split out definitions spec-json-schemas#128
3. The many meanings of AsyncAPI, some food for thought - @jonaslagoni - The many meanings of an AsyncAPI file spec#628 - Defining a collection of applications  spec#658
4. Do AsyncAPI documents need to conform to JSON Schema? - @jessemenning
5. Update on the schema format issues - @magicmatatjahu - Proposal to allow defining schema format other than default one (AsyncAPI Schema) spec#622 Support JSON Schema Draft 2020-12  spec#596
6. What are the important things that absolutely need to be in v3 for it to be considered complete? - @jessemenning
7. Update on the status of Proposal to solve publish/subscribe confusion spec#618 - @smoya
8. Place for your topic
9. Q&A

Notes

2. No negative comments about splitting the schema definitions, we just didnt have enough bandwidth to push it forward just yet.
   • Question from @jessemenning about whats next for the PR, whether there is a voting process, what happens?
     • Answer is it comes down to codeowners of the repository what happens next, but we need your opionions, especially if they block the progress, something that should be fixed.
3. Important question, and one that is gonna take a lot of effort to push forward.
4. Discussion about how tied together AsyncAPI and JSON Schema is.
   • General discussion about how OpenAPI handled updating JSON Schema, and their experiences.
   • Status about how the relationship is between AsyncAPI and JSON Schema.
5. Discussion about potential format bindings by @jessemenning
   • the current blocker for @magicmatatjahu at the moment is how to handle the referencing behavior.
   • @jessemenning agreed to write down the idea of format bindings.
   • @boyney123 asked who and why we are pushing the change of updating the default schema format.
     • @jessemenning answered this by highlighting the use-cases they see from customers in Solace, where they are unable to use existing XSD and EDI documents.
6. Discussion about a missing scope for 3.0, what needs to be solved and what does not.
   • @jonaslagoni suggested to start a 3.0 progress issue to track who is championing what issues - created afterwards here: Work on 3.0 release spec#691
   • General consensus that we need to focus on being open and figuring out how to let others know what issues needs champions.
   • Idea to go through all the issues and triage what should be included for next meeting.
   • Question from @smoya about whether we need to add a limit to how many breaking changes we are allowed to make, to make adoption easier.
   • @boyney123 commented and agreed and raised a concern whether issues from 2 years ago where still relevant and how we figure out if it's relevant.
   • Suggestion was made to track this in an individual issue/discussion - @jessemenning created it here: Use Version 3 milestone to triage potential inclusions in AsyncAPI version 3 spec#692
   • @jessemenning also suggested to change the frequency of the meetings to one a week - Increase frequency of Spec 3.0 meeting from biweekly to weekly spec#690
7. @boyney123 suggested to have concrete streams or use the 3.0 meetings to deep dive into specific issues.

Recording

• Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLNgLB4-UnA

Timestamps agenda items:
2. https://youtu.be/CLNgLB4-UnA?t=411
3. https://youtu.be/CLNgLB4-UnA?t=640
4. https://youtu.be/CLNgLB4-UnA?t=861
5. https://youtu.be/CLNgLB4-UnA?t=1203
6. https://youtu.be/CLNgLB4-UnA?t=2096
7. https://youtu.be/CLNgLB4-UnA?t=3129

[magicmatatjahu]

@magicmatatjahu do you want to give a quick update on your schema format issues? (Maybe just spend 5 minutes introducing them and what you need from others)

@jonaslagoni The update isn't much because I haven't done anything around this topic since propose idea. As for the problem itself, it's more related to what direction we'll go with referencing in AsyncAPI, because that's the most problematic in my proposal. We have to take into account that referencing in JSON Schema only allows you to reference another JSON Scheme, this is a drastic cut off the possibility of e.g. for xml referencing, which would be treated as string.

[jonaslagoni]

@jonaslagoni The update isn't much because I haven't done anything around this topic since propose idea. As for the problem itself, it's more related to what direction we'll go with referencing in AsyncAPI, because that's the most problematic in my proposal. We have to take into account that referencing in JSON Schema only allows you to reference another JSON Scheme, this is a drastic cut off the possibility of e.g. for xml referencing, which would be treated as string.

That is also a perfect update, what are you stuck on, and what do you need from others to figure it out 😄 @magicmatatjahu do you want me to add it the agenda?

[magicmatatjahu]

do you want me to add it the agenda?

if you want, please :)

[jonaslagoni]

Vidoes released, notes written and timestamps added, closing this issue. See you next meeting!

See #235 (comment)