diff --git a/pep-0000.txt b/pep-0000.txt
index 3de9ba58e..65c935db0 100644
--- a/pep-0000.txt
+++ b/pep-0000.txt
@@ -117,6 +117,7 @@ Index by Category
  S   318  Function/Method Decorator Syntax             Smith
  S   319  Python Synchronize/Asynchronize Block        Pelletier
  S   321  Date/Time Parsing and Formatting             Kuchling
+ S   322  Reverse Iteration Methods                    Hettinger
  S   754  IEEE 754 Floating Point Special Values       Warnes
 
  Finished PEPs (done, implemented in CVS)
@@ -335,6 +336,7 @@ Numerical Index
  S   319  Python Synchronize/Asynchronize Block        Pelletier
  I   320  Python 2.4 Release Schedule                  Warsaw
  S   321  Date/Time Parsing and Formatting             Kuchling
+ S   322  Reverse Iteration Methods                    Hettinger
  SR  666  Reject Foolish Indentation                   Creighton
  S   754  IEEE 754 Floating Point Special Values       Warnes
 
diff --git a/pep-0322.txt b/pep-0322.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..71fe5f493
--- /dev/null
+++ b/pep-0322.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,207 @@
+PEP: 322
+Title: Reverse Iteration Methods
+Version: $Revision$
+Last-Modified: $Date$
+Author: Raymond Hettinger <python@rcn.com>
+Status: Draft
+Type: Standards Track
+Content-Type: text/x-rst
+Created: 24-Sep-2003
+Python-Version: 2.4
+Post-History: 24-Sep-2003
+
+
+Abstract
+========
+
+This proposal is to extend the API of several sequence types
+to include methods for iterating over the sequence in reverse.
+
+
+Motivation
+==========
+
+For indexable objects, current approaches for reverse iteration are
+error prone, unnatural, and not especially readable::
+
+    for i in xrange(n-1, -1, -1):
+        print seqn[i]
+
+One other current approach involves reversing a list before iterating
+over it.  That technique wastes computer cycles, memory, and lines of
+code.  Also, it only works with lists (strings, for example, do not
+define a reverse method)::
+
+    rseqn = list(seqn)
+    rseqn.reverse()
+    for value in rseqn:
+        print value
+
+Extending slicing minimizes the code overhead but does nothing for
+memory efficiency, beauty, or clarity.
+
+Reverse iteration is much less common than forward iteration, but it
+does arise regularly in practice.  See `Real World Use Cases`_ below.
+
+
+Proposal
+========
+
+Add a method called *iter_backwards()* to sequence objects that can
+benefit from it.  The above examples then simplify to::
+
+    for i in xrange(n).iter_backwards():
+        print seqn[i]
+
+::
+
+    for elem in seqn.iter_backwards():
+        print elem
+
+The new protocol would be applied to lists, strings, xrange objects,
+and possibly other sequence objects as well (depending on use cases
+and implementation issues).  It would not apply to unordered
+collections like dicts and sets.
+
+No language syntax changes are needed.
+
+
+Alternative Method Names
+========================
+
+* *iterbackwards* -- like iteritems() but somewhat long
+* *backwards* -- more pithy, less explicit
+* *ireverse* -- reminiscent of imap(), izip(), and ifilter()
+
+
+Open Issues
+===========
+
+* Should *tuple* objects be included?  In the past, they have been
+  denied some list like behaviors such as count() and index().
+
+* Should *file* objects be included?  Implementing reverse iteration
+  may not be easy though it would be useful on occasion.
+
+* Should *enumerate* objects be included?  They can provide reverse
+  iteration only when the underlying sequences support *__len__*
+  and reverse iteration.
+
+
+Real World Use Cases
+====================
+
+Here are some instances of reverse iteration taken from the standard
+library and comments on why reverse iteration was necessary:
+
+* atexit.exit_handlers() uses::
+
+    while _exithandlers:
+        func, targs, kargs = _exithandlers.pop()
+            . . .
+
+  The application dictates the need to run exit handlers in the
+  reverse order they were built.  The ``while alist: alist.pop()``
+  form is readable and clean; however, it would be slightly faster
+  and clearer with::
+
+    for func, target, kargs in _exithandlers.iter_backwards():
+        . . .
+    del _exithandlers
+
+* difflib.get_close_matches() uses::
+
+    result.sort()           # Retain only the best n.
+    result = result[-n:]    # Move best-scorer to head of list.
+    result.reverse()        # Strip scores.
+    return [x for score, x in result]
+
+  The need for reverse iteration arises from a requirement to return
+  a portion of a sort in an order opposite of the sort criterion.  The
+  list comprehension is incidental (the third step of a Schwartzian
+  transform).  This particular use case can met with extended slicing,
+  but the code is somewhat unattractive, hard to visually verify,
+  and difficult for beginners to construct::
+
+      result.sort()
+      return [x for score, x in result[:-n-1:-1]]
+
+  The proposed form is much easier to construct and verify::
+
+      result.sort()
+      return [x for score, x in result[-n:].iter_backwards()]
+
+* heapq.heapify() uses ``for i in xrange(n//2 - 1, -1, -1)`` because
+  higher-level orderings are more easily formed from pairs of
+  lower-level orderings.  A forward version of this algorithm is
+  possible; however, that would complicate the rest of the heap code
+  which iterates over the underlying list in the opposite direction.
+
+* mhlib.test() uses::
+
+    testfolders.reverse();
+    for t in testfolders:
+        do('mh.deletefolder(%s)' % `t`)
+
+  The need for reverse iteration arises because the tail of the
+  underlying list is altered during iteration.
+
+* platform._dist_try_harder() uses
+  ``for n in range(len(verfiles)-1,-1,-1)`` because the loop deletes
+  selected elements from *verfiles* but needs to leave the rest of
+  the list intact for further iteration.  This use case could be
+  addressed with *itertools.ifilter()* but would require the
+  selection predicate to be in a *lambda* expression.  The net
+  result is less clear and readable than the original.  A better
+  reformulation is to replace the first line with the proposed
+  method.
+
+* random.shuffle() uses ``for i in xrange(len(x)-1, 0, -1)`` because
+  the algorithm is most easily understood as randomly selecting
+  elements from an ever diminishing pool.  In fact, the algorithm can
+  be run in a forward direction but is less intuitive and rarely
+  presented that way in literature.
+
+* rfc822.Message.__delitem__() uses::
+
+    list.reverse()
+    for i in list:
+        del self.headers[i]
+
+  The need for reverse iteration arises because the tail of the
+  underlying list is altered during iteration.
+
+
+Rejected Alternative Ideas
+==========================
+
+* Add a builtin function, *reverse()* which calls a magic method,
+  __riter__.  I see this as more overhead for no additional benefit.
+
+* Add a builtin function, *reverse()* which does the above, and
+  if *__riter__* is not found, constructs its own using
+  *__getitem__*, and if *__getitem__* is not found, builds a list
+  from *__iter__* and returns a reverse iterator over the new list.
+  The advantage is that one function takes care of almost everything
+  that is potentially reversible.  A disadvantage is that it can
+  invisibility slip in to a low performance mode (in terms of time
+  and memory) which would be more visible with an explicit
+  ``list(obj).reverse()``.  Another problem is that *__getitem__*
+  is also used in mappings as well as sequences and that could lead
+  to bizarre results.
+
+
+Copyright
+=========
+
+This document has been placed in the public domain.
+
+
+
+..
+   Local Variables:
+   mode: indented-text
+   indent-tabs-mode: nil
+   sentence-end-double-space: t
+   fill-column: 70
+   End: