diff --git a/keps/prod-readiness/sig-node/5322.yaml b/keps/prod-readiness/sig-node/5322.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..2a00193b513
--- /dev/null
+++ b/keps/prod-readiness/sig-node/5322.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+kep-number: 5322
+alpha:
+  approver: "@jpbetz"
diff --git a/keps/sig-node/5322-dra-driver-permanent-failure/README.md b/keps/sig-node/5322-dra-driver-permanent-failure/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..78baf143ed9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/keps/sig-node/5322-dra-driver-permanent-failure/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1070 @@
+<!--
+**Note:** When your KEP is complete, all of these comment blocks should be removed.
+
+Follow the guidelines of the [documentation style guide].
+In particular, wrap lines to a reasonable length, to make it
+easier for reviewers to cite specific portions, and to minimize diff churn on
+updates.
+
+[documentation style guide]: https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/guide/style-guide.md
+
+To get started with this template:
+
+- [X] **Pick a hosting SIG.**
+  Make sure that the problem space is something the SIG is interested in taking
+  up. KEPs should not be checked in without a sponsoring SIG.
+- [X] **Create an issue in kubernetes/enhancements**
+  When filing an enhancement tracking issue, please make sure to complete all
+  fields in that template. One of the fields asks for a link to the KEP. You
+  can leave that blank until this KEP is filed, and then go back to the
+  enhancement and add the link.
+- [X] **Make a copy of this template directory.**
+  Copy this template into the owning SIG's directory and name it
+  `NNNN-short-descriptive-title`, where `NNNN` is the issue number (with no
+  leading-zero padding) assigned to your enhancement above.
+- [X] **Fill out as much of the kep.yaml file as you can.**
+  At minimum, you should fill in the "Title", "Authors", "Owning-sig",
+  "Status", and date-related fields.
+- [X] **Fill out this file as best you can.**
+  At minimum, you should fill in the "Summary" and "Motivation" sections.
+  These should be easy if you've preflighted the idea of the KEP with the
+  appropriate SIG(s).
+- [X] **Create a PR for this KEP.**
+  Assign it to people in the SIG who are sponsoring this process.
+- [ ] **Merge early and iterate.**
+  Avoid getting hung up on specific details and instead aim to get the goals of
+  the KEP clarified and merged quickly. The best way to do this is to just
+  start with the high-level sections and fill out details incrementally in
+  subsequent PRs.
+
+Just because a KEP is merged does not mean it is complete or approved. Any KEP
+marked as `provisional` is a working document and subject to change. You can
+denote sections that are under active debate as follows:
+
+```
+<<[UNRESOLVED optional short context or usernames ]>>
+Stuff that is being argued.
+<<[/UNRESOLVED]>>
+```
+
+When editing KEPS, aim for tightly-scoped, single-topic PRs to keep discussions
+focused. If you disagree with what is already in a document, open a new PR
+with suggested changes.
+
+One KEP corresponds to one "feature" or "enhancement" for its whole lifecycle.
+You do not need a new KEP to move from beta to GA, for example. If
+new details emerge that belong in the KEP, edit the KEP. Once a feature has become
+"implemented", major changes should get new KEPs.
+
+The canonical place for the latest set of instructions (and the likely source
+of this file) is [here](/keps/NNNN-kep-template/README.md).
+
+**Note:** Any PRs to move a KEP to `implementable`, or significant changes once
+it is marked `implementable`, must be approved by each of the KEP approvers.
+If none of those approvers are still appropriate, then changes to that list
+should be approved by the remaining approvers and/or the owning SIG (or
+SIG Architecture for cross-cutting KEPs).
+-->
+# KEP-5322: DRA: Handle permanent driver failures
+
+<!--
+This is the title of your KEP. Keep it short, simple, and descriptive. A good
+title can help communicate what the KEP is and should be considered as part of
+any review.
+-->
+
+<!--
+A table of contents is helpful for quickly jumping to sections of a KEP and for
+highlighting any additional information provided beyond the standard KEP
+template.
+
+Ensure the TOC is wrapped with
+  <code>&lt;!-- toc --&rt;&lt;!-- /toc --&rt;</code>
+tags, and then generate with `hack/update-toc.sh`.
+-->
+
+<!-- toc -->
+- [Release Signoff Checklist](#release-signoff-checklist)
+- [Summary](#summary)
+- [Motivation](#motivation)
+  - [Goals](#goals)
+  - [Non-Goals](#non-goals)
+- [Proposal](#proposal)
+  - [User Stories](#user-stories)
+    - [Efficiency](#efficiency)
+    - [Visibility of Errors](#visibility-of-errors)
+  - [Risks and Mitigations](#risks-and-mitigations)
+- [Design Details](#design-details)
+  - [API](#api)
+  - [Pod Admission Failure](#pod-admission-failure)
+  - [Preventing Repeated Failures](#preventing-repeated-failures)
+  - [Diagnosing Permanent Errors](#diagnosing-permanent-errors)
+  - [Test Plan](#test-plan)
+      - [Prerequisite testing updates](#prerequisite-testing-updates)
+      - [Unit tests](#unit-tests)
+      - [Integration tests](#integration-tests)
+      - [e2e tests](#e2e-tests)
+  - [Graduation Criteria](#graduation-criteria)
+    - [Alpha](#alpha)
+    - [Beta](#beta)
+    - [GA](#ga)
+  - [Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy](#upgrade--downgrade-strategy)
+  - [Version Skew Strategy](#version-skew-strategy)
+- [Production Readiness Review Questionnaire](#production-readiness-review-questionnaire)
+  - [Feature Enablement and Rollback](#feature-enablement-and-rollback)
+  - [Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning](#rollout-upgrade-and-rollback-planning)
+  - [Monitoring Requirements](#monitoring-requirements)
+  - [Dependencies](#dependencies)
+  - [Scalability](#scalability)
+  - [Troubleshooting](#troubleshooting)
+- [Implementation History](#implementation-history)
+- [Drawbacks](#drawbacks)
+- [Alternatives](#alternatives)
+<!-- /toc -->
+
+## Release Signoff Checklist
+
+<!--
+**ACTION REQUIRED:** In order to merge code into a release, there must be an
+issue in [kubernetes/enhancements] referencing this KEP and targeting a release
+milestone **before the [Enhancement Freeze](https://git.k8s.io/sig-release/releases)
+of the targeted release**.
+
+For enhancements that make changes to code or processes/procedures in core
+Kubernetes—i.e., [kubernetes/kubernetes], we require the following Release
+Signoff checklist to be completed.
+
+Check these off as they are completed for the Release Team to track. These
+checklist items _must_ be updated for the enhancement to be released.
+-->
+
+Items marked with (R) are required *prior to targeting to a milestone / release*.
+
+- [ ] (R) Enhancement issue in release milestone, which links to KEP dir in [kubernetes/enhancements] (not the initial KEP PR)
+- [ ] (R) KEP approvers have approved the KEP status as `implementable`
+- [ ] (R) Design details are appropriately documented
+- [ ] (R) Test plan is in place, giving consideration to SIG Architecture and SIG Testing input (including test refactors)
+  - [ ] e2e Tests for all Beta API Operations (endpoints)
+  - [ ] (R) Ensure GA e2e tests meet requirements for [Conformance Tests](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md)
+  - [ ] (R) Minimum Two Week Window for GA e2e tests to prove flake free
+- [ ] (R) Graduation criteria is in place
+  - [ ] (R) [all GA Endpoints](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/pull/1806) must be hit by [Conformance Tests](https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md) within one minor version of promotion to GA
+- [ ] (R) Production readiness review completed
+- [ ] (R) Production readiness review approved
+- [ ] "Implementation History" section is up-to-date for milestone
+- [ ] User-facing documentation has been created in [kubernetes/website], for publication to [kubernetes.io]
+- [ ] Supporting documentation—e.g., additional design documents, links to mailing list discussions/SIG meetings, relevant PRs/issues, release notes
+
+<!--
+**Note:** This checklist is iterative and should be reviewed and updated every time this enhancement is being considered for a milestone.
+-->
+
+[kubernetes.io]: https://kubernetes.io/
+[kubernetes/enhancements]: https://git.k8s.io/enhancements
+[kubernetes/kubernetes]: https://git.k8s.io/kubernetes
+[kubernetes/website]: https://git.k8s.io/website
+
+## Summary
+
+<!--
+This section is incredibly important for producing high-quality, user-focused
+documentation such as release notes or a development roadmap. It should be
+possible to collect this information before implementation begins, in order to
+avoid requiring implementors to split their attention between writing release
+notes and implementing the feature itself. KEP editors and SIG Docs
+should help to ensure that the tone and content of the `Summary` section is
+useful for a wide audience.
+
+A good summary is probably at least a paragraph in length.
+-->
+
+For Dynamic Resource Allocation (DRA), the kubelet interfaces with a separate
+driver component via gRPC which is responsible for attaching devices to
+containers based on scheduler outcomes. When drivers indicate to the kubelet
+that a failure occurred during that process, the kubelet will try again later.
+This strategy enables the kubelet to overcome transient failures in drivers, but
+is wasteful when the error is deterministic based on unchanged inputs.
+
+This KEP proposes additions to the gRPC interface between the kubelet and DRA
+drivers to enable drivers to report permanent failures, and updates to the
+kubelet to respond to those errors by ceasing to continuously retry invoking the
+DRA driver.
+
+## Motivation
+
+<!--
+This section is for explicitly listing the motivation, goals, and non-goals of
+this KEP.  Describe why the change is important and the benefits to users. The
+motivation section can optionally provide links to [experience reports] to
+demonstrate the interest in a KEP within the wider Kubernetes community.
+
+[experience reports]: https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/ExperienceReports
+-->
+
+Several failure modes of the DRA driver's `NodePrepareResources` gRPC method are
+not possible to resolve by trying again with the same input the way the kubelet
+currently handles all failures:
+
+- The opaque `config` associated with a request in a ResourceClaim may be
+  invalid
+- A device allocated by the scheduler may have just been found by the driver to
+  be unusable
+
+Pods with unfulfillable DRA allocations will stay stuck in a non-erroneous
+pending state until manual intervention is taken to identify the cause for the
+lack of progress and ultimately delete and recreate the Pod. In the meantime,
+the kubelet will waste time retrying an operation that is known to fail the
+same way as it did previously. Making the permanent nature of the error known as
+soon as possible allows the quickest path for remediation.
+
+### Goals
+
+<!--
+List the specific goals of the KEP. What is it trying to achieve? How will we
+know that this has succeeded?
+-->
+
+- Minimize the amount of unnecessary work done by the kubelet and DRA drivers.
+- Enable workloads to more responsively reschedule Pods in a permanent failure
+  state.
+
+### Non-Goals
+
+<!--
+What is out of scope for this KEP? Listing non-goals helps to focus discussion
+and make progress.
+-->
+
+- Automatically attempt to mitigate permanent errors, such as by deleting or
+  rescheduling Pods. That should be left to higher-level controllers.
+
+## Proposal
+
+<!--
+This is where we get down to the specifics of what the proposal actually is.
+This should have enough detail that reviewers can understand exactly what
+you're proposing, but should not include things like API designs or
+implementation. What is the desired outcome and how do we measure success?.
+The "Design Details" section below is for the real
+nitty-gritty.
+-->
+
+### User Stories
+
+<!--
+Detail the things that people will be able to do if this KEP is implemented.
+Include as much detail as possible so that people can understand the "how" of
+the system. The goal here is to make this feel real for users without getting
+bogged down.
+-->
+
+#### Efficiency
+
+As a cluster administrator, I want to minimize the amount of unnecessary work
+done by critical components like the kubelet and DRA drivers to maximize their
+availability for more important work.
+
+#### Visibility of Errors
+
+As a workload administrator, I want to ensure that my workloads are able to
+start up as quickly and reliably as possible by proactively rescheduling Pods
+when their allocated DRA resources cannot be fulfilled.
+
+<!--
+### Notes/Constraints/Caveats (Optional)
+
+What are the caveats to the proposal?
+What are some important details that didn't come across above?
+Go in to as much detail as necessary here.
+This might be a good place to talk about core concepts and how they relate.
+-->
+
+### Risks and Mitigations
+
+<!--
+What are the risks of this proposal, and how do we mitigate? Think broadly.
+For example, consider both security and how this will impact the larger
+Kubernetes ecosystem.
+
+How will security be reviewed, and by whom?
+
+How will UX be reviewed, and by whom?
+
+Consider including folks who also work outside the SIG or subproject.
+-->
+
+By retrying in all error cases, the current implementation is resilient to
+transient errors. Adding a path that does not retry opens up the possibility
+for miscategorized errors to cause a Pod to terminally fail even when a
+subsequent attempt might allow the Pod's startup to progress.
+
+## Design Details
+
+<!--
+This section should contain enough information that the specifics of your
+change are understandable. This may include API specs (though not always
+required) or even code snippets. If there's any ambiguity about HOW your
+proposal will be implemented, this is the place to discuss them.
+-->
+
+Broadly, two changes are required to enable permanent errors to skip being
+retried:
+
+1. Allow DRA drivers to annotate errors encountered during the
+   `NodePrepareResources` gRPC call as being permanent.
+1. Update the kubelet to skip retrying to prepare allocated resources for a Pod when a
+   previous request for that Pod failed permanently.
+
+### API
+
+The kubelet's DRA gRPC interface will be updated to allow drivers to
+classify errors with a new `error_type` field:
+
+```proto
+message NodePrepareResourceResponse {
+    // These are the additional devices that kubelet must
+    // make available via the container runtime. A claim
+    // may have zero or more requests and each request
+    // may have zero or more devices.
+    repeated Device devices = 1;
+    // If non-empty, preparing the ResourceClaim failed.
+    // Devices are ignored in that case.
+    string error = 2;
+    // When a non-empty error is returned, indicates the
+    // type of error that occurred.
+    NodePrepareResourceResponseErrorType error_type = 3;
+}
+
+enum NodePrepareResourceResponseErrorType {
+    // Unknown errors are unclassified.
+    Unknown = 0;
+    // Permanent errors are expected to fail consistently
+    // for a given request and should not be retried.
+    Permanent = 1;
+}
+```
+
+Permanent errors are ones which occur consistently for a given input to the DRA
+driver's `NodePrepareResources` gPRC call. Errors not classified as permanent
+are expected to be transient and eventually resolve. Permanent errors may be
+caused by faulty, irrecoverable devices or by invalid opaque `config` associated
+with a ResourceClaim's request.
+
+### Pod Admission Failure
+
+Once the kubelet receives a permanent error from a DRA driver for a given Pod,
+it must take the appropriate action to give up on the Pod as permanently as possible. More
+concretely, the kubelet will set the Pod's `status.phase` to `Failed`. The
+kubelet already knows not to continue reconciling `Failed` Pods and many other
+Pod controllers already handle `Failed` Pods.
+
+In some cases, the kubelet will re-reconcile Pods in a `Failed` phase. DRA
+drivers should not depend on requests resulting in permanent errors to never be
+made again. Similarly, DRA drivers should still expect the kubelet to invoke the
+`NodeUnprepareResources` method even after a prior `NodePrepareResources` call
+returned a permanent error.
+
+### Preventing Repeated Failures
+
+If a higher-level Pod controller replaces a Pod in the `Failed` phase with a new
+Pod because of a permanent failure from a DRA driver, steps should be taken to
+prevent the replacement Pod from being allocated the same device which is
+expected to fail again the same way.
+
+When [device taints and tolerations](https://kep.k8s.io/5055) are available, DRA
+drivers should consider adding a taint for the device with the `NoSchedule`
+effect if it determines other requests for that device are also likely to fail.
+When device taints are not available, DRA drivers may instead consider removing
+a device from the ResourceSlice to remove it from the pool.
+
+When a permanent error is caused by invalid configuration in the ResourceClaim's
+request and not by a faulty device, drivers should not taint the device if another
+request for the same device with different parameters is expected to succeed.
+
+### Diagnosing Permanent Errors
+
+The kubelet already logs errors returned from DRA drivers'
+`NodePrepareResources` responses and will generate an Event referring to the
+affected Pods. These messages will be updated to indicate when the error is
+permanent.
+
+### Test Plan
+
+<!--
+**Note:** *Not required until targeted at a release.*
+The goal is to ensure that we don't accept enhancements with inadequate testing.
+
+All code is expected to have adequate tests (eventually with coverage
+expectations). Please adhere to the [Kubernetes testing guidelines][testing-guidelines]
+when drafting this test plan.
+
+[testing-guidelines]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-testing/testing.md
+-->
+
+[X] I/we understand the owners of the involved components may require updates to
+existing tests to make this code solid enough prior to committing the changes necessary
+to implement this enhancement.
+
+##### Prerequisite testing updates
+
+<!--
+Based on reviewers feedback describe what additional tests need to be added prior
+implementing this enhancement to ensure the enhancements have also solid foundations.
+-->
+
+##### Unit tests
+
+<!--
+In principle every added code should have complete unit test coverage, so providing
+the exact set of tests will not bring additional value.
+However, if complete unit test coverage is not possible, explain the reason of it
+together with explanation why this is acceptable.
+-->
+
+<!--
+Additionally, for Alpha try to enumerate the core package you will be touching
+to implement this enhancement and provide the current unit coverage for those
+in the form of:
+- <package>: <date> - <current test coverage>
+The data can be easily read from:
+https://testgrid.k8s.io/sig-testing-canaries#ci-kubernetes-coverage-unit
+
+This can inform certain test coverage improvements that we want to do before
+extending the production code to implement this enhancement.
+-->
+
+- `k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/kubelet`: `2025-09-29` - `72.6%`
+- `k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/kubelet/cm/dra`: `2025-09-29` - `81.7%`
+- `k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/kubelet/kuberuntime`: `2025-09-29` - `69.5%`
+
+##### Integration tests
+
+<!--
+Integration tests are contained in https://git.k8s.io/kubernetes/test/integration.
+Integration tests allow control of the configuration parameters used to start the binaries under test.
+This is different from e2e tests which do not allow configuration of parameters.
+Doing this allows testing non-default options and multiple different and potentially conflicting command line options.
+For more details, see https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/contributors/devel/sig-testing/testing-strategy.md
+
+If integration tests are not necessary or useful, explain why.
+-->
+
+<!--
+This question should be filled when targeting a release.
+For Alpha, describe what tests will be added to ensure proper quality of the enhancement.
+
+For Beta and GA, document that tests have been written,
+have been executed regularly, and have been stable.
+This can be done with:
+- permalinks to the GitHub source code
+- links to the periodic job (typically https://testgrid.k8s.io/sig-release-master-blocking#integration-master), filtered by the test name
+- a search in the Kubernetes bug triage tool (https://storage.googleapis.com/k8s-triage/index.html)
+-->
+
+These changes are focused on interactions between third-party DRA drivers and
+the kubelet. Since integration tests generally focus on interactions with etcd
+and the API server, integration tests for this feature will not be added.
+
+##### e2e tests
+
+<!--
+This question should be filled when targeting a release.
+For Alpha, describe what tests will be added to ensure proper quality of the enhancement.
+
+For Beta and GA, document that tests have been written,
+have been executed regularly, and have been stable.
+This can be done with:
+- permalinks to the GitHub source code
+- links to the periodic job (typically a job owned by the SIG responsible for the feature), filtered by the test name
+- a search in the Kubernetes bug triage tool (https://storage.googleapis.com/k8s-triage/index.html)
+
+We expect no non-infra related flakes in the last month as a GA graduation criteria.
+If e2e tests are not necessary or useful, explain why.
+-->
+
+E2E tests will be added to verify that Pods referencing ResourceClaims which
+receive permanent errors from DRA drivers transition to the `Failed` `status.phase`.
+
+Likewise, Pods referencing ResourceClaims which cause drivers to fail transiently
+should remain in the `Pending` phase until the transient error is overcome and
+the Pod reaches the `Running` phase.
+
+Other potential E2E test scenarios include:
+- Ensuring a Pod referencing a ResourceClaim that encountered a permanent error
+  can be deleted when different DRA driver instances handle the
+  `NodePrepareResources` and `NodeUnprepareResources` calls.
+- Ensuring that Pods experiencing permanent DRA errors do not interfere with the
+  cleanup of CSI resources.
+- Ensuring the kubelet leaks no resources when many Pods encounter permanent DRA
+  errors.
+
+### Graduation Criteria
+
+<!--
+**Note:** *Not required until targeted at a release.*
+
+Define graduation milestones.
+
+These may be defined in terms of API maturity, [feature gate] graduations, or as
+something else. The KEP should keep this high-level with a focus on what
+signals will be looked at to determine graduation.
+
+Consider the following in developing the graduation criteria for this enhancement:
+- [Maturity levels (`alpha`, `beta`, `stable`)][maturity-levels]
+- [Feature gate][feature gate] lifecycle
+- [Deprecation policy][deprecation-policy]
+
+Clearly define what graduation means by either linking to the [API doc
+definition](https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/overview/kubernetes-api/#api-versioning)
+or by redefining what graduation means.
+
+In general we try to use the same stages (alpha, beta, GA), regardless of how the
+functionality is accessed.
+
+[feature gate]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/feature-gates.md
+[maturity-levels]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/api_changes.md#alpha-beta-and-stable-versions
+[deprecation-policy]: https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/using-api/deprecation-policy/
+
+Below are some examples to consider, in addition to the aforementioned [maturity levels][maturity-levels].
+
+#### Alpha
+
+- Feature implemented behind a feature flag
+- Initial e2e tests completed and enabled
+
+#### Beta
+
+- Gather feedback from developers and surveys
+- Complete features A, B, C
+- Additional tests are in Testgrid and linked in KEP
+- More rigorous forms of testing—e.g., downgrade tests and scalability tests
+- All functionality completed
+- All security enforcement completed
+- All monitoring requirements completed
+- All testing requirements completed
+- All known pre-release issues and gaps resolved
+
+**Note:** Beta criteria must include all functional, security, monitoring, and testing requirements along with resolving all issues and gaps identified
+
+#### GA
+
+- N examples of real-world usage
+- N installs
+- Allowing time for feedback
+- All issues and gaps identified as feedback during beta are resolved
+
+**Note:** GA criteria must not include any functional, security, monitoring, or testing requirements.  Those must be beta requirements.
+
+**Note:** Generally we also wait at least two releases between beta and
+GA/stable, because there's no opportunity for user feedback, or even bug reports,
+in back-to-back releases.
+
+**For non-optional features moving to GA, the graduation criteria must include
+[conformance tests].**
+
+[conformance tests]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/conformance-tests.md
+
+#### Deprecation
+
+<!--
+- Announce deprecation and support policy of the existing flag
+- Two versions passed since introducing the functionality that deprecates the flag (to address version skew)
+- Address feedback on usage/changed behavior, provided on GitHub issues
+- Deprecate the flag
+-->
+
+#### Alpha
+
+- Feature implemented behind a feature flag
+- Initial e2e tests completed and enabled
+
+#### Beta
+
+- Gather feedback from developers and surveys
+- Additional tests are in Testgrid and linked in KEP
+
+#### GA
+
+- 3 examples of real-world usage
+- Allowing time for feedback
+- All issues and gaps identified as feedback during beta are resolved
+
+### Upgrade / Downgrade Strategy
+
+<!--
+If applicable, how will the component be upgraded and downgraded? Make sure
+this is in the test plan.
+
+Consider the following in developing an upgrade/downgrade strategy for this
+enhancement:
+- What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing
+  cluster required to make on upgrade, in order to maintain previous behavior?
+- What changes (in invocations, configurations, API use, etc.) is an existing
+  cluster required to make on upgrade, in order to make use of the enhancement?
+-->
+
+### Version Skew Strategy
+
+<!--
+If applicable, how will the component handle version skew with other
+components? What are the guarantees? Make sure this is in the test plan.
+
+Consider the following in developing a version skew strategy for this
+enhancement:
+- Does this enhancement involve coordinating behavior in the control plane and nodes?
+- How does an n-3 kubelet or kube-proxy without this feature available behave when this feature is used?
+- How does an n-1 kube-controller-manager or kube-scheduler without this feature available behave when this feature is used?
+- Will any other components on the node change? For example, changes to CSI,
+  CRI or CNI may require updating that component before the kubelet.
+-->
+
+When the kubelet is a newer version which implements this KEP and a DRA driver
+is an older version whose gRPC interface does not yet include the
+`error_type` field, the kubelet will observe that all errors coming from a
+DRA driver's `NodePrepareResources` response are transient. This matches the
+current behavior where the kubelet does not yet implement this KEP.
+
+When the inverse is true and a DRA driver responds to `NodePrepareResources`
+with a permanent error to a kubelet that does not implement this KEP, then the
+error will be treated as a transient error. DRA drivers therefore should expect
+that identical requests may be made even when a permanent error was given in a
+prior response.
+
+## Production Readiness Review Questionnaire
+
+<!--
+
+Production readiness reviews are intended to ensure that features merging into
+Kubernetes are observable, scalable and supportable; can be safely operated in
+production environments, and can be disabled or rolled back in the event they
+cause increased failures in production. See more in the PRR KEP at
+https://git.k8s.io/enhancements/keps/sig-architecture/1194-prod-readiness.
+
+The production readiness review questionnaire must be completed and approved
+for the KEP to move to `implementable` status and be included in the release.
+
+In some cases, the questions below should also have answers in `kep.yaml`. This
+is to enable automation to verify the presence of the review, and to reduce review
+burden and latency.
+
+The KEP must have a approver from the
+[`prod-readiness-approvers`](http://git.k8s.io/enhancements/OWNERS_ALIASES)
+team. Please reach out on the
+[#prod-readiness](https://kubernetes.slack.com/archives/CPNHUMN74) channel if
+you need any help or guidance.
+-->
+
+### Feature Enablement and Rollback
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting alpha to a release.
+-->
+
+###### How can this feature be enabled / disabled in a live cluster?
+
+<!--
+Pick one of these and delete the rest.
+
+Documentation is available on [feature gate lifecycle] and expectations, as
+well as the [existing list] of feature gates.
+
+[feature gate lifecycle]: https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/devel/sig-architecture/feature-gates.md
+[existing list]: https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/command-line-tools-reference/feature-gates/
+-->
+
+- [X] Feature gate (also fill in values in `kep.yaml`)
+  - Feature gate name: DRAHandlePermanentDriverFailures
+  - Components depending on the feature gate:
+    - kubelet
+
+###### Does enabling the feature change any default behavior?
+
+<!--
+Any change of default behavior may be surprising to users or break existing
+automations, so be extremely careful here.
+-->
+
+No
+
+###### Can the feature be disabled once it has been enabled (i.e. can we roll back the enablement)?
+
+<!--
+Describe the consequences on existing workloads (e.g., if this is a runtime
+feature, can it break the existing applications?).
+
+Feature gates are typically disabled by setting the flag to `false` and
+restarting the component. No other changes should be necessary to disable the
+feature.
+
+NOTE: Also set `disable-supported` to `true` or `false` in `kep.yaml`.
+-->
+
+Yes, setting the feature gate to `false` will immediately cause all errors from
+DRA drivers to be handled by the kubelet the same way as they were previously.
+DRA drivers should not need to be aware of whether or not the kubelet implements
+or enables this feature in order to behave in a correct way.
+
+###### What happens if we reenable the feature if it was previously rolled back?
+
+When the feature is reenabled, new errors that are classified as permanent will
+be handled the same way as if the feature were enabled initially. This feature
+does not require any persisted state.
+
+###### Are there any tests for feature enablement/disablement?
+
+<!--
+The e2e framework does not currently support enabling or disabling feature
+gates. However, unit tests in each component dealing with managing data, created
+with and without the feature, are necessary. At the very least, think about
+conversion tests if API types are being modified.
+
+Additionally, for features that are introducing a new API field, unit tests that
+are exercising the `switch` of feature gate itself (what happens if I disable a
+feature gate after having objects written with the new field) are also critical.
+You can take a look at one potential example of such test in:
+https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/97058/files#diff-7826f7adbc1996a05ab52e3f5f02429e94b68ce6bce0dc534d1be636154fded3R246-R282
+-->
+
+This will be covered with unit tests for the kubelet.
+
+### Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+-->
+
+Will be considered for beta.
+
+###### How can a rollout or rollback fail? Can it impact already running workloads?
+
+<!--
+Try to be as paranoid as possible - e.g., what if some components will restart
+mid-rollout?
+
+Be sure to consider highly-available clusters, where, for example,
+feature flags will be enabled on some API servers and not others during the
+rollout. Similarly, consider large clusters and how enablement/disablement
+will rollout across nodes.
+-->
+
+Will be considered for beta.
+
+###### What specific metrics should inform a rollback?
+
+<!--
+What signals should users be paying attention to when the feature is young
+that might indicate a serious problem?
+-->
+
+Will be considered for beta.
+
+###### Were upgrade and rollback tested? Was the upgrade->downgrade->upgrade path tested?
+
+<!--
+Describe manual testing that was done and the outcomes.
+Longer term, we may want to require automated upgrade/rollback tests, but we
+are missing a bunch of machinery and tooling and can't do that now.
+-->
+
+Will be considered for beta.
+
+###### Is the rollout accompanied by any deprecations and/or removals of features, APIs, fields of API types, flags, etc.?
+
+<!--
+Even if applying deprecation policies, they may still surprise some users.
+-->
+
+Will be considered for beta.
+
+### Monitoring Requirements
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+
+For GA, this section is required: approvers should be able to confirm the
+previous answers based on experience in the field.
+-->
+
+###### How can an operator determine if the feature is in use by workloads?
+
+<!--
+Ideally, this should be a metric. Operations against the Kubernetes API (e.g.,
+checking if there are objects with field X set) may be a last resort. Avoid
+logs or events for this purpose.
+-->
+
+Will be considered for beta.
+
+###### How can someone using this feature know that it is working for their instance?
+
+<!--
+For instance, if this is a pod-related feature, it should be possible to determine if the feature is functioning properly
+for each individual pod.
+Pick one more of these and delete the rest.
+Please describe all items visible to end users below with sufficient detail so that they can verify correct enablement
+and operation of this feature.
+Recall that end users cannot usually observe component logs or access metrics.
+
+- [ ] Events
+  - Event Reason: 
+- [ ] API .status
+  - Condition name: 
+  - Other field: 
+- [ ] Other (treat as last resort)
+  - Details:
+-->
+
+Will be considered for beta.
+
+###### What are the reasonable SLOs (Service Level Objectives) for the enhancement?
+
+<!--
+This is your opportunity to define what "normal" quality of service looks like
+for a feature.
+
+It's impossible to provide comprehensive guidance, but at the very
+high level (needs more precise definitions) those may be things like:
+  - per-day percentage of API calls finishing with 5XX errors <= 1%
+  - 99% percentile over day of absolute value from (job creation time minus expected
+    job creation time) for cron job <= 10%
+  - 99.9% of /health requests per day finish with 200 code
+
+These goals will help you determine what you need to measure (SLIs) in the next
+question.
+-->
+
+Will be considered for beta.
+
+###### What are the SLIs (Service Level Indicators) an operator can use to determine the health of the service?
+
+<!--
+Pick one more of these and delete the rest.
+
+- [ ] Metrics
+  - Metric name:
+  - [Optional] Aggregation method:
+  - Components exposing the metric:
+- [ ] Other (treat as last resort)
+  - Details:
+-->
+
+Will be considered for beta.
+
+###### Are there any missing metrics that would be useful to have to improve observability of this feature?
+
+<!--
+Describe the metrics themselves and the reasons why they weren't added (e.g., cost,
+implementation difficulties, etc.).
+-->
+
+Will be considered for beta.
+
+### Dependencies
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+-->
+
+###### Does this feature depend on any specific services running in the cluster?
+
+<!--
+Think about both cluster-level services (e.g. metrics-server) as well
+as node-level agents (e.g. specific version of CRI). Focus on external or
+optional services that are needed. For example, if this feature depends on
+a cloud provider API, or upon an external software-defined storage or network
+control plane.
+
+For each of these, fill in the following—thinking about running existing user workloads
+and creating new ones, as well as about cluster-level services (e.g. DNS):
+  - [Dependency name]
+    - Usage description:
+      - Impact of its outage on the feature:
+      - Impact of its degraded performance or high-error rates on the feature:
+-->
+
+Will be considered for beta.
+
+### Scalability
+
+<!--
+For alpha, this section is encouraged: reviewers should consider these questions
+and attempt to answer them.
+
+For beta, this section is required: reviewers must answer these questions.
+
+For GA, this section is required: approvers should be able to confirm the
+previous answers based on experience in the field.
+-->
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new API calls?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  - API call type (e.g. PATCH pods)
+  - estimated throughput
+  - originating component(s) (e.g. Kubelet, Feature-X-controller)
+Focusing mostly on:
+  - components listing and/or watching resources they didn't before
+  - API calls that may be triggered by changes of some Kubernetes resources
+    (e.g. update of object X triggers new updates of object Y)
+  - periodic API calls to reconcile state (e.g. periodic fetching state,
+    heartbeats, leader election, etc.)
+-->
+
+Depending on the exact implementation, permanent errors will result in at most
+one extra API call per Pod to PATCH pods/status.
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in introducing new API types?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  - API type
+  - Supported number of objects per cluster
+  - Supported number of objects per namespace (for namespace-scoped objects)
+-->
+
+No
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new calls to the cloud provider?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  - Which API(s):
+  - Estimated increase:
+-->
+
+No
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing size or count of the existing API objects?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  - API type(s):
+  - Estimated increase in size: (e.g., new annotation of size 32B)
+  - Estimated amount of new objects: (e.g., new Object X for every existing Pod)
+-->
+
+No
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in increasing time taken by any operations covered by existing SLIs/SLOs?
+
+<!--
+Look at the [existing SLIs/SLOs].
+
+Think about adding additional work or introducing new steps in between
+(e.g. need to do X to start a container), etc. Please describe the details.
+
+[existing SLIs/SLOs]: https://git.k8s.io/community/sig-scalability/slos/slos.md#kubernetes-slisslos
+-->
+
+No. Startup latency is not affected because Pods affected by this feature never
+finish starting up.
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in non-negligible increase of resource usage (CPU, RAM, disk, IO, ...) in any components?
+
+<!--
+Things to keep in mind include: additional in-memory state, additional
+non-trivial computations, excessive access to disks (including increased log
+volume), significant amount of data sent and/or received over network, etc.
+This through this both in small and large cases, again with respect to the
+[supported limits].
+
+[supported limits]: https://git.k8s.io/community//sig-scalability/configs-and-limits/thresholds.md
+-->
+
+No
+
+###### Can enabling / using this feature result in resource exhaustion of some node resources (PIDs, sockets, inodes, etc.)?
+
+<!--
+Focus not just on happy cases, but primarily on more pathological cases
+(e.g. probes taking a minute instead of milliseconds, failed pods consuming resources, etc.).
+If any of the resources can be exhausted, how this is mitigated with the existing limits
+(e.g. pods per node) or new limits added by this KEP?
+
+Are there any tests that were run/should be run to understand performance characteristics better
+and validate the declared limits?
+-->
+
+No
+
+### Troubleshooting
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+
+For GA, this section is required: approvers should be able to confirm the
+previous answers based on experience in the field.
+
+The Troubleshooting section currently serves the `Playbook` role. We may consider
+splitting it into a dedicated `Playbook` document (potentially with some monitoring
+details). For now, we leave it here.
+-->
+
+###### How does this feature react if the API server and/or etcd is unavailable?
+
+Will be considered for beta.
+
+###### What are other known failure modes?
+
+<!--
+For each of them, fill in the following information by copying the below template:
+  - [Failure mode brief description]
+    - Detection: How can it be detected via metrics? Stated another way:
+      how can an operator troubleshoot without logging into a master or worker node?
+    - Mitigations: What can be done to stop the bleeding, especially for already
+      running user workloads?
+    - Diagnostics: What are the useful log messages and their required logging
+      levels that could help debug the issue?
+      Not required until feature graduated to beta.
+    - Testing: Are there any tests for failure mode? If not, describe why.
+-->
+
+Will be considered for beta.
+
+###### What steps should be taken if SLOs are not being met to determine the problem?
+
+Will be considered for beta.
+
+## Implementation History
+
+<!--
+Major milestones in the lifecycle of a KEP should be tracked in this section.
+Major milestones might include:
+- the `Summary` and `Motivation` sections being merged, signaling SIG acceptance
+- the `Proposal` section being merged, signaling agreement on a proposed design
+- the date implementation started
+- the first Kubernetes release where an initial version of the KEP was available
+- the version of Kubernetes where the KEP graduated to general availability
+- when the KEP was retired or superseded
+-->
+
+- 1.35: Initial proposal and implementation
+
+## Drawbacks
+
+<!--
+Why should this KEP _not_ be implemented?
+-->
+
+While this feature makes it more convenient to determine when a Pod needs to be
+rescheduled, it does not unlock any brand new use cases. It is already possible
+for a higher-level controller to determine that a Pod taking too much time to
+start up and act accordingly. The complexity of this change might outweigh the
+benefits.
+
+## Alternatives
+
+<!--
+What other approaches did you consider, and why did you rule them out? These do
+not need to be as detailed as the proposal, but should include enough
+information to express the idea and why it was not acceptable.
+-->
+
+<!--
+## Infrastructure Needed (Optional)
+
+Use this section if you need things from the project/SIG. Examples include a
+new subproject, repos requested, or GitHub details. Listing these here allows a
+SIG to get the process for these resources started right away.
+-->
diff --git a/keps/sig-node/5322-dra-driver-permanent-failure/kep.yaml b/keps/sig-node/5322-dra-driver-permanent-failure/kep.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..466a00d3b59
--- /dev/null
+++ b/keps/sig-node/5322-dra-driver-permanent-failure/kep.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+title: "DRA: Handle permanent driver failures"
+kep-number: 5322
+authors:
+  - "@nojnhuh"
+owning-sig: sig-node
+participating-sigs: []
+status: implementable
+creation-date: 2025-09-19
+reviewers:
+  - "@pohly"
+  - "@SergeyKanzhelev"
+approvers:
+  - "@mrunalp"
+
+see-also:
+  - "/keps/sig-scheduling/5055-dra-device-taints-and-tolerations"
+replaces: []
+
+stage: alpha
+
+# The most recent milestone for which work toward delivery of this KEP has been
+# done. This can be the current (upcoming) milestone, if it is being actively
+# worked on.
+latest-milestone: "v1.35"
+
+milestone:
+  alpha: "v1.35"
+
+feature-gates:
+  - name: DRAHandlePermanentDriverFailures
+    components:
+      - kubelet
+disable-supported: true
+
+metrics: []