Interesting read! I'm in general agreement with the proposed syntax and rationale.
But I have a Nit to Pick: "In the OASIS AMQP Technical Committee, we will add the abstract notion of destination into the addressing specification".
NOOOooooo! It can't be called a "destination"!!
  to:(
fred.com)/x - sending stuff to a thing in fred - very destination-like
  source:(
fred.com)/y - getting stuff from a thing in fred - NOT A DESTINATION
(
fred.com) could contain targets, sources, request-response servers, named or anonymous relays, who knows what else. It might be reached by opening a TCP connection, accepting a TCP connection, routed intermediaries, sidecars, fabrics, clouds, fogs, bogs or homing pigeons. It is in no sense limited to being a "destination" of anything.
(I'm senstive from efforts to bridge bi-directional AMQP to HTTP technologies steeped in unidirectional-client-server assumptions. I really don't want assumptions of directionality in the language of the AMQP addressing spec itself!!!)
Not sure what to call this protocol-independent name/identifier/address, but it can't imply one-directional communication: container, node, host, endpoint, thing, object, place, name, moniker, handle, doohicky ... the English language doesn't have enough vague nouns for our industry.