AsyncAPI

AsyncAPI is the specification standard for event-driven and message-driven APIs — the OpenAPI of the asynchronous world. Where OpenAPI describes synchronous HTTP request-response APIs in a machine-readable contract, AsyncAPI does the same for the messages and events flowing across MQTT, AMQP, WebSockets, STOMP, Kafka, NATS, Redis, and the rest of the real-time and event-driven landscape. I’ve followed it closely since it first appeared, and my assessment has stayed consistent: AsyncAPI is one of the most important and most healthily run specifications in the API space, and a leading indicator of how mature an organization’s API operations actually are.

I first wrote about AsyncAPI in November 2017, when it was a young protocol-agnostic specification for defining message-driven APIs in a machine-readable format. The thing that struck me immediately was that it mirrored OpenAPI deliberately — anyone who understood OpenAPI could get up to speed on AsyncAPI quickly because the structure was familiar. It introduced the concepts you need for the event-driven world: messages, which are the pieces of information programs exchange to notify each other that an event occurred or to trigger a command; and topics, which message-driven protocols call topic in MQTT, routing key in AMQP, destination in STOMP — the event-driven analog to URLs in HTTP APIs. From the start I praised Fran Méndez and the early contributors like Bruno Pedro and Mike Ralphson for positioning AsyncAPI as complementary to OpenAPI rather than competitive with it.

That complementary posture became the philosophical core of why I think AsyncAPI matters, and it crystallized in one observation I made in 2020: the HTTP binding in AsyncAPI is just OpenAPI. AsyncAPI baked in OpenAPI the same way both AsyncAPI and OpenAPI baked in JSON Schema. This is exactly how API specifications should work. There shouldn’t be one specification to rule them all. You let specs compete on usefulness and on the tooling built on top of them, and you build on the specifications that already exist rather than reinventing the wheel. This isn’t a question of OpenAPI versus AsyncAPI — it’s a question of OpenAPI and AsyncAPI. That kind of extensibility and reuse is what APIs are supposed to be about in the first place. AsyncAPI lived that principle in its actual design.

I drew an explicit parallel early on between where AsyncAPI was and where OpenAPI had been. In 2018 I wrote that AsyncAPI was roughly where OpenAPI, then still called Swagger, had been in 2011 or 2012 — promising, gaining real adoption, but young and under-resourced. With more investment and a couple more years of adoption and maturing, I expected it would become just as important to the evolving API landscape as OpenAPI and Postman Collections. That prediction held up. The same year, Fran Méndez made a direct public appeal for help, explaining that AsyncAPI was an open-source project maintained by one person, in his spare time, with no company or funds behind it, even as more and more companies were depending on it. He wanted to keep it free because he believed engineering must be democratized. I amplified that call and added an eighth way to contribute beyond his seven — money — because the specification needed real investment to let Fran carve out time, build tooling, and sustain the work. That tension between a critically important open standard and the thin resources holding it up was a recurring theme in those years.

The technical maturation arrived with AsyncAPI 2.0 in September 2019. The 2.0 release brought channel and channel item objects in place of the earlier topic model, operation objects for publish and subscribe, message and message trait objects for defining and reusing message structures, correlation ID objects for tracing messages, and components and reference objects carried over from the OpenAPI reusability patterns. What caught my attention most was the expansion of protocol bindings spanning the top protocols used for event-driven APIs. The modularity and flexibility had clearly moved to the next level. I planned to prototype Kafka and NATS implementations against AsyncAPI 2.0, pairing the specification with real working code and testing and mocking infrastructure, because a specification only proves itself when you can drive real tooling from it.

The protocol bindings are AsyncAPI’s answer to the diversity of the event-driven world, and they’re central to its design. In 2020 the community was defining roughly thirteen bindings — AMQP and AMQP 1.0, HTTP, JMS, Kafka, MQTT and MQTT5, NATS, Redis, SNS and SQS, STOMP, and WebSockets. The binding model lets a single AsyncAPI definition describe an event-driven API while still capturing the protocol-specific details each transport requires. This is what makes AsyncAPI genuinely useful across an enterprise that isn’t standardized on a single messaging technology — it provides one unified definition surface across many transports, the same way OpenAPI provides one surface across many HTTP APIs.

The tooling ecosystem grew the way healthy specification ecosystems do. By 2020 I was cataloging dozens of open-source tools built on AsyncAPI — documentation generators, code generators in multiple languages, validators, parsers in Go and JavaScript, converters for migrating between versions, and a notable number of GitHub Actions for generation, validation, and Spectral linting in CI/CD pipelines. I recognized the patterns immediately because I’d watched the same patterns emerge in the Swagger and OpenAPI communities years earlier. When you see the tooling ecosystem replicate the maturation path of an earlier successful specification, that’s a strong signal the specification is going to last.

The governance story is the part I find most genuinely refreshing, and it’s where AsyncAPI taught the rest of the specification world a lesson. When AsyncAPI joined the Linux Foundation, it adopted GraphQL’s RFC-based contribution process rather than inventing its own. The guiding principles it borrowed are excellent: favor no change, with the burden of proof on the contributor; enable new capabilities from real-world use cases rather than theory; prefer simplicity and consistency over expressiveness; preserve option value by keeping future doors open; and treat understandability as just as important as correctness, because specs are for humans, not only machines. The RFC stages run from Strawman through Proposal, Draft, and Accepted, with rejection possible at any stage, and every proposal needs a champion to push it forward. I applauded this loudly. AsyncAPI reused what already existed not just in the specification itself but in its governance process — and you end up with more momentum doing it that way than going it alone. I felt that both OpenAPI and GraphQL suffered from not working well with each other for various reasons, and AsyncAPI’s whole approach to reuse, both technical and procedural, was the corrective example.

AsyncAPI also anchored my thinking about schema registries as the heartbeat of event-driven operations. When Fran asked my opinion on Amazon EventBridge’s schema registry in 2019, I laid out what such a registry needed — and AsyncAPI generation was central to it. A proper event-driven registry should auto-generate and version AsyncAPI specifications for all channels and topics, alongside JSON Schema, with tagging, diffing, code generation, documentation, testing, traceability, auditability, and governance built in. The registry should give teams a complete view of the digital bits flowing around the enterprise, where they can retrieve the AsyncAPI, OpenAPI, and JSON Schema artifacts they need. As event streams proliferate across Kafka, message buses, and cloud integrations, AsyncAPI-backed registries provide the visibility and compliance that pure HTTP API management never had to address.

This is ultimately why I treat AsyncAPI fluency as a maturity signal. I’ve said I can size up the nimbleness of a large organization fairly quickly based on whether they say “Swagger” or “OpenAPI,” whether they know about AsyncAPI, and whether they use JSON Schema and Postman Collections across operations. Specification literacy is becoming a critical aspect of API operations, and entire organizations will increasingly be defined by how well they define, collaborate, and communicate using machine-readable API definitions. An organization that has adopted AsyncAPI has moved beyond pure request-response thinking toward an event-first architecture, and is building observable, testable, versioned event infrastructure instead of letting its event-driven systems grow up undocumented and ungoverned. AsyncAPI did for event-driven and message-driven APIs what OpenAPI did for HTTP — it gave us a machine-readable contract, and with it, the entire apparatus of tooling, governance, and discovery that a contract makes possible.

Guidance

API Learnings

APIs

API Governance

API Solutions

API Discovery

API Building Blocks

API Evangelist LLC

AsyncAPI

References

Guidance Details

Explore more

Discover APIs