# Pre-PEP Discussion: RFC 9457 Error Responses for Package registries **URL:** \ **Category:** Standards\ **Created:** [December 29, 2025, 10:10pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pre-pep-discussion-rfc-9457-error-responses-for-package-registries/105453 "2025-12-29T22:10:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![AmitKaplann](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/amitkaplann/32/36826_2.png) [@AmitKaplann](https://discuss.python.org/u/AmitKaplann)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2026, 8:36pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pre-pep-discussion-rfc-9457-error-responses-for-package-registries/105453/21 "2026-08-01T20:36:15Z")
Any update on it? Seems like efforts have been halted. ---
**Author:** ![barry](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/barry/32/42_2.png) [@barry](https://discuss.python.org/u/barry)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2026, 10:28pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pre-pep-discussion-rfc-9457-error-responses-for-package-registries/105453/22 "2026-08-02T22:28:07Z")
It’s still on my radar (and a requirement for PEP 694), but y’know, life. ---
**Author:** ![AmitKaplann](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/amitkaplann/32/36826_2.png) [@AmitKaplann](https://discuss.python.org/u/AmitKaplann)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2026, 8:13am UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pre-pep-discussion-rfc-9457-error-responses-for-package-registries/105453/23 "2026-08-03T08:13:18Z")
@barry Thanks for replying 🙂 1. May it only be delivered as part of the bigger change described in PEP 694? 2. Is there anything I can do to push it forward? ---
**Author:** ![woodruffw](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/woodruffw/32/37228_2.png) [@woodruffw](https://discuss.python.org/u/woodruffw)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2026, 2:04pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pre-pep-discussion-rfc-9457-error-responses-for-package-registries/105453/24 "2026-08-03T14:04:46Z")
IMO it’s distinct from PEP 694 and is best treated as its own PEP (not least because I think it’s a relative simple proposal, whereas PEP 694 has a lot of moving parts/stakeholders). Like @barry this is on my radar, and I’m planning on having some time in the next 1-2 months to help push it forwards. ---
**Author:** ![barry](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/barry/32/42_2.png) [@barry](https://discuss.python.org/u/barry)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2026, 5:10pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pre-pep-discussion-rfc-9457-error-responses-for-package-registries/105453/25 "2026-08-03T17:10:37Z")
Oh sorry, I didn’t mean that RFC 9457 should be folded into PEP 694, just that 694 specifies that its errors will use RFC 9457. Totally agree they should be separate in both specification and implementation. ---
**Author:** ![woodruffw](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/woodruffw/32/37228_2.png) [@woodruffw](https://discuss.python.org/u/woodruffw)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2026, 2:29pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pre-pep-discussion-rfc-9457-error-responses-for-package-registries/105453/26 "2026-08-04T14:29:19Z")
Update: @zsol and I are hoping to spend some time over the next month or so pushing this forwards. I think the next two big steps here are: 1. Turning this pre-PEP into a proper PEP. 2. Revisiting the PyPI PR that @lgonzalez has already put up. @lgonzalez are you interested in collaborating with us on the PEP itself? I’m going to credit you as a co-author in any case (unless you don’t want that, please let me know!), but we’re also very happy to actively work on it together 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![lgonzalez](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/lgonzalez/32/31806_2.png) [@lgonzalez](https://discuss.python.org/u/lgonzalez)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2026, 8:08pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pre-pep-discussion-rfc-9457-error-responses-for-package-registries/105453/27 "2026-08-05T20:08:02Z")
@woodruffw happy to collaborate as well. Count me in! ---
**Author:** ![woodruffw](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/woodruffw/32/37228_2.png) [@woodruffw](https://discuss.python.org/u/woodruffw)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2026, 9:51pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pre-pep-discussion-rfc-9457-error-responses-for-package-registries/105453/28 "2026-08-06T21:51:57Z")
Awesome! I’ve sent you an invite to a repo where I’ve been drafting something up. ---
**Author:** ![AmitKaplann](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/amitkaplann/32/36826_2.png) [@AmitKaplann](https://discuss.python.org/u/AmitKaplann)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2026, 12:20pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pre-pep-discussion-rfc-9457-error-responses-for-package-registries/105453/29 "2026-08-09T12:20:29Z")
@woodruffw I’d be happy to contribute as well ---
**Author:** ![encukou](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/encukou/32/2461_2.png) [@encukou](https://discuss.python.org/u/encukou)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2026, 5:12pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pre-pep-discussion-rfc-9457-error-responses-for-package-registries/105453/30 "2026-10-22T17:12:20Z")
This is now [PEP 847](https://peps.python.org/pep-0847/). Please discuss in the new thread: [PEP 847: Problem Details for the Simple Repository API](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-847-problem-details-for-the-simple-repository-api/108996) [Previous page](https://discuss.python.org/t/pre-pep-discussion-rfc-9457-error-responses-for-package-registries/105453.md?page=1)