Any update on it?
Seems like efforts have been halted.
It’s still on my radar (and a requirement for PEP 694), but y’know, life.
1 Like
@barry Thanks for replying 
- May it only be delivered as part of the bigger change described in PEP 694?
- Is there anything I can do to push it forward?
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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.
3 Likes
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:
- Turning this pre-PEP into a proper PEP.
- 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 
4 Likes
@woodruffw happy to collaborate as well. Count me in!
2 Likes
Awesome! I’ve sent you an invite to a repo where I’ve been drafting something up.
@woodruffw I’d be happy to contribute as well