diff --git a/docs/implementing_proto3_presence.md b/docs/implementing_proto3_presence.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..585b7a2a9374
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/implementing_proto3_presence.md
@@ -0,0 +1,274 @@
+# How To Implement Field Presence for Proto3
+
+Protobuf release 3.12 adds experimental support for `optional` fields in
+proto3. Proto3 optional fields track presence like in proto2. For background
+information about what presence tracking means, please see
+[docs/field_presence](field_presence.md).
+
+This document is targeted at developers who own or maintain protobuf code
+generators. All code generators will need to be updated to support proto3
+optional fields. First-party code generators developed by Google are being
+updated already. However third-party code generators will need to be updated
+independently by their authors. This includes:
+
+- implementations of Protocol Buffers for other languges.
+- alternate implementations of Protocol Buffers that target specialized use
+  cases.
+- code generators that implement some utility code on top of protobuf generated
+  classes.
+
+While this document speaks in terms of "code generators", these same principles
+apply to implementations that dynamically generate a protocol buffer API "on the
+fly", directly from a descriptor, in languages that support this kind of usage.
+
+## Updating a Code Generator
+
+When a user adds an `optional` field to proto3, this is internally rewritten as
+a one-field oneof, for backward-compatibility with reflection-based algorithms:
+
+```protobuf
+syntax = "proto3";
+
+message Foo {
+  // Experimental feature, not generally supported yet!
+  optional int32 foo = 1;
+
+  // Internally rewritten to:
+  // oneof _foo {
+  //   int32 foo = 1 [proto3_optional=true];
+  // }
+  //
+  // We call _foo a "synthetic" oneof, since it was not created by the user.
+}
+```
+
+As a result, the main two goals when updating a code generator are:
+
+1. Give `optional` fields like `foo` normal field presence, as described in
+   [docs/field_presence](field_presence.md) If your implementation already
+   supports proto2, a proto3 `optional` field should use exactly the same API
+   and internal implementation as proto2 `optional`.
+2. Avoid generating any oneof-based accessors for the synthetic oneof. Its only
+   purpose is to make reflection-based algorithms work properly if they are
+   not aware of proto3 presence. The synthetic oneof should not appear anywhere
+   in the generated API.
+
+### Satisfying the Experimental Check
+
+If you try to run `protoc` on a file with proto3 `optional` fields, you will get
+an error because the feature is still experimental:
+
+```
+$ cat test.proto
+syntax = "proto3";
+
+message Foo {
+  // Experimental feature, not generally supported yet!
+  optional int32 a = 1;
+}
+$ protoc --cpp_out=. test.proto
+test.proto: This file contains proto3 optional fields, but --experimental_allow_proto3_optional was not set.
+```
+
+There are two options for getting around this error:
+
+1. Pass `--experimental_allow_proto3_optional` to protoc.
+2. Make your filename (or a directory name) contain the string
+   `test_proto3_optional`. This indicates that the proto file is specifically
+   for testing proto3 optional support, so the check is suppressed.
+
+These options are demonstrated below:
+
+```
+# One option:
+$ ./src/protoc test.proto --cpp_out=. --experimental_allow_proto3_optional
+
+# Another option:
+$ cp test.proto test_proto3_optional.proto
+$ ./src/protoc test_proto3_optional.proto --cpp_out=.
+$
+```
+
+### Signaling That Your Code Generator Supports Proto3 Optional
+
+If you now try to invoke your own code generator with the test proto, you will
+run into a different error:
+
+```
+$ ./src/protoc test_proto3_optional.proto --my_codegen_out=.
+test_proto3_optional.proto: is a proto3 file that contains optional fields, but
+code generator --my_codegen_out hasn't been updated to support optional fields in
+proto3. Please ask the owner of this code generator to support proto3 optional.
+```
+
+This check exists to make sure that code generators get a chance to update
+before they are used with proto3 `optional` fields. Without this check an old
+code generator might emit obsolete generated APIs (like accessors for a
+synthetic oneof) and users could start depending on these. That would create
+a legacy migration burden once a code generator actually implements the feature.
+
+To signal that your code generator supports `optional` fields in proto3, you
+need to tell `protoc` what features you support. The method for doing this
+depends on whether you are using the C++
+`google::protobuf::compiler::CodeGenerator`
+framework or not.
+
+If you are using the CodeGenerator framework:
+
+```c++
+class MyCodeGenerator : public google::protobuf::compiler::CodeGenerator {
+  // Add this method.
+  uint64_t GetSupportedFeatures() const override {
+    // Indicate that this code generator supports proto3 optional fields.
+    // (Note: don't release your code generator with this flag set until you
+    // have actually added and tested your proto3 support!)
+    return FEATURE_PROTO3_OPTIONAL;
+  }
+}
+```
+
+If you are generating code using raw `CodeGeneratorRequest` and
+`CodeGeneratorResponse` messages from `plugin.proto`, the change will be very
+similar:
+
+```c++
+void GenerateResponse() {
+  CodeGeneratorResponse response;
+  response.set_supported_features(CodeGeneratorResponse::FEATURE_PROTO3_OPTIONAL);
+
+  // Generate code...
+}
+```
+
+Once you have added this, you should now be able to successfully use your code
+generator to generate a file containing proto3 optional fields:
+
+```
+$ ./src/protoc test_proto3_optional.proto --my_codegen_out=.
+```
+
+### Updating Your Code Generator
+
+Now to actually add support for proto3 optional to your code generator. The goal
+is to recognize proto3 optional fields as optional, and suppress any output from
+synthetic oneofs.
+
+If your code generator does not currently support proto2, you will need to
+design an API and implementation for supporting presence in scalar fields.
+Generally this means:
+
+- allocating a bit inside the generated class to represent whether a given field
+  is present or not.
+- exposing a `has_foo()` method for each field to return the value of this bit.
+- make the parser set this bit when a value is parsed from the wire.
+- make the serializer test this bit to decide whether to serialize.
+
+If your code generator already supports proto2, then most of your work is
+already done. All you need to do is make sure that proto3 optional fields have
+exactly the same API and behave in exactly the same way as proto2 optional
+fields.
+
+From experience updating several of Google's code generators, most of the
+updates that are required fall into one of several patterns. Here we will show
+the patterns in terms of the C++ CodeGenerator framework. If you are using
+`CodeGeneratorRequest` and `CodeGeneratorReply` directly, you can translate the
+C++ examples to your own language, referencing the C++ implementation of these
+methods where required.
+
+#### To test whether a field should have presence
+
+Old:
+
+```c++
+bool MessageHasPresence(const google::protobuf::Descriptor* message) {
+  return message->file()->syntax() ==
+         google::protobuf::FileDescriptor::SYNTAX_PROTO2;
+}
+```
+
+New:
+
+```c++
+// Presence is no longer a property of a message, it's a property of individual
+// fields.
+bool FieldHasPresence(const google::protobuf::FieldDescriptor* field) {
+  return field->has_presence();
+  // Note, the above will return true for fields in a oneof.
+  // If you want to filter out oneof fields, write this instead:
+  //   return field->has_presence && !field->real_containing_oneof()
+}
+```
+
+#### To test whether a field is a member of a oneof
+
+Old:
+
+```c++
+bool FieldIsInOneof(const google::protobuf::FielDescriptor* field) {
+  return field->containing_oneof() != nullptr;
+}
+```
+
+New:
+
+```c++
+bool FieldIsInOneof(const google::protobuf::FielDescriptor* field) {
+  // real_containing_oneof() returns nullptr for synthetic oneofs.
+  return field->real_containing_oneof() != nullptr;
+}
+```
+
+#### To iterate over all oneofs
+
+Old:
+
+```c++
+bool IterateOverOneofs(const google::protobuf::Descriptor* message) {
+  for (int i = 0; i < message->oneof_decl_count(); i++) {
+    const google::protobuf::OneofDescriptor* oneof = message->oneof(i);
+    // ...
+  }
+}
+```
+
+New:
+
+```c++
+bool IterateOverOneofs(const google::protobuf::Descriptor* message) {
+  // Real oneofs are always first, and real_oneof_decl_count() will return the
+  // total number of oneofs, excluding synthetic oneofs.
+  for (int i = 0; i < message->real_oneof_decl_count(); i++) {
+    const google::protobuf::OneofDescriptor* oneof = message->oneof(i);
+    // ...
+  }
+}
+```
+
+## Updating Reflection
+
+If your implementation supports protobuf reflection, there are a few changes
+that you need to make:
+
+1. Reflection for synthetic oneofs should work properly. Even though synthetic
+   oneofs do not really exist in the message, you can still make reflection work
+   as if they did. In particular, you can make a method like
+   `Reflection::HasOneof()` or `Reflection::GetOneofFieldDescriptor()` look at
+   the hasbit to determine if the oneof is present or not.
+2. Reflection for proto3 optional fields should work properly. For example, a
+   method like `Reflection::HasField()` should know to look for the hasbit for a
+   proto3 `optional` field. It should not be fooled by the synthetic oneof into
+   thinking that there is a `case` member for the oneof.
+
+Once you have updated reflection to work properly with proto3 `optional` and
+synthetic oneofs, any code that *uses* your reflection interface should work
+properly with no changes. This is the benefit of using synthetic oneofs.
+
+In particular, if you have a reflection-based implementation of protobuf text
+format or JSON, it should properly support proto3 optional fields without any
+changes to the code. The fields will look like they all belong to a one-field
+oneof, and existing proto3 reflection code should know how to test presence for
+fields in a oneof.
+
+So the best way to test your reflection changes is to try round-tripping a
+message through text format, JSON, or some other reflection-based parser and
+serializer, if you have one.