diff --git a/Documentation/technical/large-object-promisors.txt b/Documentation/technical/large-object-promisors.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..1984f11a55
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/technical/large-object-promisors.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,640 @@
+Large Object Promisors
+======================
+
+Since Git has been created, users have been complaining about issues
+with storing large files in Git. Some solutions have been created to
+help, but they haven't helped much with some issues.
+
+Git currently supports multiple promisor remotes, which could help
+with some of these remaining issues, but it's very hard to use them to
+help, because a number of important features are missing.
+
+The goal of the effort described in this document is to add these
+important features.
+
+We will call a "Large Object Promisor", or "LOP" in short, a promisor
+remote which is used to store only large blobs and which is separate
+from the main remote that should store the other Git objects and the
+rest of the repos.
+
+By extension, we will also call "Large Object Promisor", or LOP, the
+effort described in this document to add a set of features to make it
+easier to handle large blobs/files in Git by using LOPs.
+
+This effort aims to especially improve things on the server side, and
+especially for large blobs that are already compressed in a binary
+format.
+
+This effort aims to provide an alternative to Git LFS
+(https://git-lfs.com/) and similar tools like git-annex
+(https://git-annex.branchable.com/) for handling large files, even
+though a complete alternative would very likely require other efforts
+especially on the client side, where it would likely help to implement
+a new object representation for large blobs as discussed in:
+
+https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqbkdometi.fsf@gitster.g/
+
+0) Non goals
+------------
+
+- We will not discuss those client side improvements here, as they
+  would require changes in different parts of Git than this effort.
++
+So we don't pretend to fully replace Git LFS with only this effort,
+but we nevertheless believe that it can significantly improve the
+current situation on the server side, and that other separate
+efforts could also improve the situation on the client side.
+
+- In the same way, we are not going to discuss all the possible ways
+  to implement a LOP or their underlying object storage, or to
+  optimize how LOP works.
++
+Our opinion is that the simplest solution for now is for LOPs to use
+object storage through a remote helper (see section II.2 below for
+more details) to store their objects. So we consider that this is the
+default implementation. If there are improvements on top of this,
+that's great, but our opinion is that such improvements are not
+necessary for LOPs to already be useful. Such improvements are likely
+a different technical topic, and can be taken care of separately
+anyway.
++
+So in particular we are not going to discuss pluggable ODBs or other
+object database backends that could chunk large blobs, dedup the
+chunks and store them efficiently. Sure, that would be a nice
+improvement to store large blobs on the server side, but we believe
+it can just be a separate effort as it's also not technically very
+related to this effort.
++
+We are also not going to discuss data transfer improvements between
+LOPs and clients or servers. Sure, there might be some easy and very
+effective optimizations there (as we know that objects on LOPs are
+very likely incompressible and not deltifying well), but this can be
+dealt with separately in a separate effort.
+
+In other words, the goal of this document is not to talk about all the
+possible ways to optimize how Git could handle large blobs, but to
+describe how a LOP based solution can already work well and alleviate
+a number of current issues in the context of Git clients and servers
+sharing Git objects.
+
+I) Issues with the current situation
+------------------------------------
+
+- Some statistics made on GitLab repos have shown that more than 75%
+  of the disk space is used by blobs that are larger than 1MB and
+  often in a binary format.
+
+- So even if users could use Git LFS or similar tools to store a lot
+  of large blobs out of their repos, it's a fact that in practice they
+  don't do it as much as they probably should.
+
+- On the server side ideally, the server should be able to decide for
+  itself how it stores things. It should not depend on users deciding
+  to use tools like Git LFS on some blobs or not.
+
+- It's much more expensive to store large blobs that don't delta
+  compress well on regular fast seeking drives (like SSDs) than on
+  object storage (like Amazon S3 or GCP Buckets). Using fast drives
+  for regular Git repos makes sense though, as serving regular Git
+  content (blobs containing text or code) needs drives where seeking
+  is fast, but the content is relatively small. On the other hand,
+  object storage for Git LFS blobs makes sense as seeking speed is not
+  as important when dealing with large files, while costs are more
+  important. So the fact that users don't use Git LFS or similar tools
+  for a significant number of large blobs has likely some bad
+  consequences on the cost of repo storage for most Git hosting
+  platforms.
+
+- Having large blobs handled in the same way as other blobs and Git
+  objects in Git repos instead of on object storage also has a cost in
+  increased memory and CPU usage, and therefore decreased performance,
+  when creating packfiles. (This is because Git tries to use delta
+  compression or zlib compression which is unlikely to work well on
+  already compressed binary content.) So it's not just a storage cost
+  increase.
+
+- When a large blob has been committed into a repo, it might not be
+  possible to remove this blob from the repo without rewriting
+  history, even if the user then decides to use Git LFS or a similar
+  tool to handle it.
+
+- In fact Git LFS and similar tools are not very flexible in letting
+  users change their minds about the blobs they should handle or not.
+
+- Even when users are using Git LFS or similar tools, they are often
+  complaining that these tools require significant effort to set up,
+  learn and use correctly.
+
+II) Main features of the "Large Object Promisors" solution
+----------------------------------------------------------
+
+The main features below should give a rough overview of how the
+solution may work. Details about needed elements can be found in
+following sections.
+
+Even if each feature below is very useful for the full solution, it is
+very likely to be also useful on its own in some cases where the full
+solution is not required. However, we'll focus primarily on the big
+picture here.
+
+Also each feature doesn't need to be implemented entirely in Git
+itself. Some could be scripts, hooks or helpers that are not part of
+the Git repo. It would be helpful if those could be shared and
+improved on collaboratively though. So we want to encourage sharing
+them.
+
+1) Large blobs are stored on LOPs
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Large blobs should be stored on special promisor remotes that we will
+call "Large Object Promisors" or LOPs. These LOPs should be additional
+remotes dedicated to contain large blobs especially those in binary
+format. They should be used along with main remotes that contain the
+other objects.
+
+Note 1
+++++++
+
+To clarify, a LOP is a normal promisor remote, except that:
+
+- it should store only large blobs,
+
+- it should be separate from the main remote, so that the main remote
+  can focus on serving other objects and the rest of the repos (see
+  feature 4) below) and can use the LOP as a promisor remote for
+  itself.
+
+Note 2
+++++++
+
+Git already makes it possible for a main remote to also be a promisor
+remote storing both regular objects and large blobs for a client that
+clones from it with a filter on blob size. But here we explicitly want
+to avoid that.
+
+Rationale
++++++++++
+
+LOPs aim to be good at handling large blobs while main remotes are
+already good at handling other objects.
+
+Implementation
+++++++++++++++
+
+Git already has support for multiple promisor remotes, see
+link:partial-clone.html#using-many-promisor-remotes[the partial clone documentation].
+
+Also, Git already has support for partial clone using a filter on the
+size of the blobs (with `git clone --filter=blob:limit=<size>`).  Most
+of the other main features below are based on these existing features
+and are about making them easy and efficient to use for the purpose of
+better handling large blobs.
+
+2) LOPs can use object storage
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+LOPs can be implemented using object storage, like an Amazon S3 or GCP
+Bucket or MinIO (which is open source under the GNU AGPLv3 license) to
+actually store the large blobs, and can be accessed through a Git
+remote helper (see linkgit:gitremote-helpers[7]) which makes the
+underlying object storage appear like a remote to Git.
+
+Note
+++++
+
+A LOP can be a promisor remote accessed using a remote helper by
+both some clients and the main remote.
+
+Rationale
++++++++++
+
+This looks like the simplest way to create LOPs that can cheaply
+handle many large blobs.
+
+Implementation
+++++++++++++++
+
+Remote helpers are quite easy to write as shell scripts, but it might
+be more efficient and maintainable to write them using other languages
+like Go.
+
+Some already exist under open source licenses, for example:
+
+  - https://github.com/awslabs/git-remote-s3
+  - https://gitlab.com/eric.p.ju/git-remote-gs
+
+Other ways to implement LOPs are certainly possible, but the goal of
+this document is not to discuss how to best implement a LOP or its
+underlying object storage (see the "0) Non goals" section above).
+
+3) LOP object storage can be Git LFS storage
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+The underlying object storage that a LOP uses could also serve as
+storage for large files handled by Git LFS.
+
+Rationale
++++++++++
+
+This would simplify the server side if it wants to both use a LOP and
+act as a Git LFS server.
+
+4) A main remote can offload to a LOP with a configurable threshold
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+On the server side, a main remote should have a way to offload to a
+LOP all its blobs with a size over a configurable threshold.
+
+Rationale
++++++++++
+
+This makes it easy to set things up and to clean things up. For
+example, an admin could use this to manually convert a repo not using
+LOPs to a repo using a LOP. On a repo already using a LOP but where
+some users would sometimes push large blobs, a cron job could use this
+to regularly make sure the large blobs are moved to the LOP.
+
+Implementation
+++++++++++++++
+
+Using something based on `git repack --filter=...` to separate the
+blobs we want to offload from the other Git objects could be a good
+idea. The missing part is to connect to the LOP, check if the blobs we
+want to offload are already there and if not send them.
+
+5) A main remote should try to remain clean from large blobs
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+A main remote should try to avoid containing a lot of oversize
+blobs. For that purpose, it should offload as needed to a LOP and it
+should have ways to prevent oversize blobs to be fetched, and also
+perhaps pushed, into it.
+
+Rationale
++++++++++
+
+A main remote containing many oversize blobs would defeat the purpose
+of LOPs.
+
+Implementation
+++++++++++++++
+
+The way to offload to a LOP discussed in 4) above can be used to
+regularly offload oversize blobs. About preventing oversize blobs from
+being fetched into the repo see 6) below. About preventing oversize
+blob pushes, a pre-receive hook could be used.
+
+Also there are different scenarios in which large blobs could get
+fetched into the main remote, for example:
+
+- A client that doesn't implement the "promisor-remote" protocol
+  (described in 6) below) clones from the main remote.
+
+- The main remote gets a request for information about a large blob
+  and is not able to get that information without fetching the blob
+  from the LOP.
+
+It might not be possible to completely prevent all these scenarios
+from happening. So the goal here should be to implement features that
+make the fetching of large blobs less likely. For example adding a
+`remote-object-info` command in the `git cat-file --batch` protocol
+and its variants might make it possible for a main repo to respond to
+some requests about large blobs without fetching them.
+
+6) A protocol negotiation should happen when a client clones
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+When a client clones from a main repo, there should be a protocol
+negotiation so that the server can advertise one or more LOPs and so
+that the client and the server can discuss if the client could
+directly use a LOP the server is advertising. If the client and the
+server can agree on that, then the client would be able to get the
+large blobs directly from the LOP and the server would not need to
+fetch those blobs from the LOP to be able to serve the client.
+
+Note
+++++
+
+For fetches instead of clones, a protocol negotiation might not always
+happen, see the "What about fetches?" FAQ entry below for details.
+
+Rationale
++++++++++
+
+Security, configurability and efficiency of setting things up.
+
+Implementation
+++++++++++++++
+
+A "promisor-remote" protocol v2 capability looks like a good way to
+implement this. The way the client and server use this capability
+could be controlled by configuration variables.
+
+Information that the server could send to the client through that
+protocol could be things like: LOP name, LOP URL, filter-spec (for
+example `blob:limit=<size>`) or just size limit that should be used as
+a filter when cloning, token to be used with the LOP, etc.
+
+7) A client can offload to a LOP
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+When a client is using a LOP that is also a LOP of its main remote,
+the client should be able to offload some large blobs it has fetched,
+but might not need anymore, to the LOP.
+
+Note
+++++
+
+It might depend on the context if it should be OK or not for clients
+to offload large blobs they have created, instead of fetched, directly
+to the LOP without the main remote checking them in some ways
+(possibly using hooks or other tools).
+
+Rationale
++++++++++
+
+On the client, the easiest way to deal with unneeded large blobs is to
+offload them.
+
+Implementation
+++++++++++++++
+
+This is very similar to what 4) above is about, except on the client
+side instead of the server side. So a good solution to 4) could likely
+be adapted to work on the client side too.
+
+There might be some security issues here, as there is no negotiation,
+but they might be mitigated if the client can reuse a token it got
+when cloning (see 6) above). Also if the large blobs were fetched from
+a LOP, it is likely, and can easily be confirmed, that the LOP still
+has them, so that they can just be removed from the client.
+
+III) Benefits of using LOPs
+---------------------------
+
+Many benefits are related to the issues discussed in "I) Issues with
+the current situation" above:
+
+- No need to rewrite history when deciding which blobs are worth
+  handling separately than other objects, or when moving or removing
+  the threshold.
+
+- If the protocol between client and server is developed and secured
+  enough, then many details might be setup on the server side only and
+  all the clients could then easily get all the configuration
+  information and use it to set themselves up mostly automatically.
+
+- Storage costs benefits on the server side.
+
+- Reduced memory and CPU needs on main remotes on the server side.
+
+- Reduced storage needs on the client side.
+
+IV) FAQ
+-------
+
+What about using multiple LOPs on the server and client side?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+That could perhaps be useful in some cases, but for now it's more
+likely that in most cases a single LOP will be advertised by the
+server and should be used by the client.
+
+A case where it could be useful for a server to advertise multiple
+LOPs is if a LOP is better for some users while a different LOP is
+better for other users. For example some clients might have a better
+connection to a LOP than others.
+
+In those cases it's the responsibility of the server to have some
+documentation to help clients. It could say for example something like
+"Users in this part of the world might want to pick only LOP A as it
+is likely to be better connected to them, while users in other parts
+of the world should pick only LOP B for the same reason."
+
+When should we trust or not trust the LOPs advertised by the server?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+In some contexts, like in corporate setup where the server and all the
+clients are parts of an internal network in a company where admins
+have all the rights on every system, it's OK, and perhaps even a good
+thing, if the clients fully trust the server, as it can help ensure
+that all the clients are on the same page.
+
+There are also contexts in which clients trust a code hosting platform
+serving them some repos, but might not fully trust other users
+managing or contributing to some of these repos. For example, the code
+hosting platform could have hooks in place to check that any object it
+receives doesn't contain malware or otherwise bad content. In this
+case it might be OK for the client to use a main remote and its LOP if
+they are both hosted by the code hosting platform, but not if the LOP
+is hosted elsewhere (where the content is not checked).
+
+In other contexts, a client should just not trust a server.
+
+So there should be different ways to configure how the client should
+behave when a server advertises a LOP to it at clone time.
+
+As the basic elements that a server can advertise about a LOP are a
+LOP name and a LOP URL, the client should base its decision about
+accepting a LOP on these elements.
+
+One simple way to be very strict in the LOP it accepts is for example
+for the client to check that the LOP is already configured on the
+client with the same name and URL as what the server advertises.
+
+In general default and "safe" settings should require that the LOP are
+configured on the client separately from the "promisor-remote"
+protocol and that the client accepts a LOP only when information about
+it from the protocol matches what has been already configured
+separately.
+
+What about LOP names?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+In some contexts, for example if the clients sometimes fetch from each
+other, it can be a good idea for all the clients to use the same names
+for all the remotes they use, including LOPs.
+
+In other contexts, each client might want to be able to give the name
+it wants to each remote, including each LOP, it interacts with.
+
+So there should be different ways to configure how the client accepts
+or not the LOP name the server advertises.
+
+If a default or "safe" setting is used, then as such a setting should
+require that the LOP be configured separately, then the name would be
+configured separately and there is no risk that the server could
+dictate a name to a client.
+
+Could the main remote be bogged down by old or paranoid clients?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Yes, it could happen if there are too many clients that are either
+unwilling to trust the main remote or that just don't implement the
+"promisor-remote" protocol because they are too old or not fully
+compatible with the 'git' client.
+
+When serving such a client, the main remote has no other choice than
+to first fetch from its LOP, to then be able to provide to the client
+everything it requested. So the main remote, even if it has cleanup
+mechanisms (see section II.4 above), would be burdened at least
+temporarily with the large blobs it had to fetch from its LOP.
+
+Not behaving like this would be breaking backward compatibility, and
+could be seen as segregating clients. For example, it might be
+possible to implement a special mode that allows the server to just
+reject clients that don't implement the "promisor-remote" protocol or
+aren't willing to trust the main remote. This mode might be useful in
+a special context like a corporate environment. There is no plan to
+implement such a mode though, and this should be discussed separately
+later anyway.
+
+A better way to proceed is probably for the main remote to show a
+message telling clients that don't implement the protocol or are
+unwilling to accept the advertised LOP(s) that they would get faster
+clone and fetches by upgrading client software or properly setting
+them up to accept LOP(s).
+
+Waiting for clients to upgrade, monitoring these upgrades and limiting
+the use of LOPs to repos that are not very frequently accessed might
+be other good ways to make sure that some benefits are still reaped
+from LOPs. Over time, as more and more clients upgrade and benefit
+from LOPs, using them in more and more frequently accessed repos will
+become worth it.
+
+Corporate environments, where it might be easier to make sure that all
+the clients are up-to-date and properly configured, could hopefully
+benefit more and earlier from using LOPs.
+
+What about fetches?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+There are different kinds of fetches. A regular fetch happens when
+some refs have been updated on the server and the client wants the ref
+updates and possibly the new objects added with them. A "backfill" or
+"lazy" fetch, on the contrary, happens when the client needs to use
+some objects it already knows about but doesn't have because they are
+on a promisor remote.
+
+Regular fetch
++++++++++++++
+
+In a regular fetch, the client will contact the main remote and a
+protocol negotiation will happen between them. It's a good thing that
+a protocol negotiation happens every time, as the configuration on the
+client or the main remote could have changed since the previous
+protocol negotiation. In this case, the new protocol negotiation
+should ensure that the new fetch will happen in a way that satisfies
+the new configuration of both the client and the server.
+
+In most cases though, the configurations on the client and the main
+remote will not have changed between 2 fetches or between the initial
+clone and a subsequent fetch. This means that the result of a new
+protocol negotiation will be the same as the previous result, so the
+new fetch will happen in the same way as the previous clone or fetch,
+using, or not using, the same LOP(s) as last time.
+
+"Backfill" or "lazy" fetch
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
+When there is a backfill fetch, the client doesn't necessarily contact
+the main remote first. It will try to fetch from its promisor remotes
+in the order they appear in the config file, except that a remote
+configured using the `extensions.partialClone` config variable will be
+tried last. See
+link:partial-clone.html#using-many-promisor-remotes[the partial clone documentation].
+
+This is not new with this effort. In fact this is how multiple remotes
+have already been working for around 5 years.
+
+When using LOPs, having the main remote configured using
+`extensions.partialClone`, so it's tried last, makes sense, as missing
+objects should only be large blobs that are on LOPs.
+
+This means that a protocol negotiation will likely not happen as the
+missing objects will be fetched from the LOPs, and then there will be
+nothing left to fetch from the main remote.
+
+To secure that, it could be a good idea for LOPs to require a token
+from the client when it fetches from them. The client could get the
+token when performing a protocol negotiation with the main remote (see
+section II.6 above).
+
+V) Future improvements
+----------------------
+
+It is expected that at the beginning using LOPs will be mostly worth
+it either in a corporate context where the Git version that clients
+use can easily be controlled, or on repos that are infrequently
+accessed. (See the "Could the main remote be bogged down by old or
+paranoid clients?" section in the FAQ above.)
+
+Over time, as more and more clients upgrade to a version that
+implements the "promisor-remote" protocol v2 capability described
+above in section II.6), it will be worth it to use LOPs more widely.
+
+A lot of improvements may also help using LOPs more widely. Some of
+these improvements are part of the scope of this document like the
+following:
+
+  - Implementing a "remote-object-info" command in the
+    `git cat-file --batch` protocol and its variants to allow main
+    remotes to respond to requests about large blobs without fetching
+    them. (Eric Ju has started working on this based on previous work
+    by Calvin Wan.)
+
+  - Creating better cleanup and offload mechanisms for main remotes
+    and clients to prevent accumulation of large blobs.
+
+  - Developing more sophisticated protocol negotiation capabilities
+    between clients and servers for handling LOPs, for example adding
+    a filter-spec (e.g., blob:limit=<size>) or size limit for
+    filtering when cloning, or adding a token for LOP authentication.
+
+  - Improving security measures for LOP access, particularly around
+    token handling and authentication.
+
+  - Developing standardized ways to configure and manage multiple LOPs
+    across different environments. Especially in the case where
+    different LOPs serve the same content to clients in different
+    geographical locations, there is a need for replication or
+    synchronization between LOPs.
+
+Some improvements, including some that have been mentioned in the "0)
+Non Goals" section of this document, are out of the scope of this
+document:
+
+  - Implementing a new object representation for large blobs on the
+    client side.
+
+  - Developing pluggable ODBs or other object database backends that
+    could chunk large blobs, dedup the chunks and store them
+    efficiently.
+
+  - Optimizing data transfer between LOPs and clients/servers,
+    particularly for incompressible and non-deltifying content.
+
+  - Creating improved client side tools for managing large objects
+    more effectively, for example tools for migrating from Git LFS or
+    git-annex, or tools to find which objects could be offloaded and
+    how much disk space could be reclaimed by offloading them.
+
+Some improvements could be seen as part of the scope of this document,
+but might already have their own separate projects from the Git
+project, like:
+
+  - Improving existing remote helpers to access object storage or
+    developing new ones.
+
+  - Improving existing object storage solutions or developing new
+    ones.
+
+Even though all the above improvements may help, this document and the
+LOP effort should try to focus, at least first, on a relatively small
+number of improvements mostly those that are in its current scope.
+
+For example introducing pluggable ODBs and a new object database
+backend is likely a multi-year effort on its own that can happen
+separately in parallel. It has different technical requirements,
+touches other part of the Git code base and should have its own design
+document(s).
