diff --git a/keps/sig-node/5999-h2c-container-probes/README.md b/keps/sig-node/5999-h2c-container-probes/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..9b2f611d3505
--- /dev/null
+++ b/keps/sig-node/5999-h2c-container-probes/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,998 @@
+<!--
+**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:
+
+- [ ] **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.
+- [ ] **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.
+- [ ] **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.
+- [ ] **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.
+- [ ] **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).
+- [ ] **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-5999: HTTP/2 cleartext (h2c) container probes
+
+<!--
+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)
+    - [Story 1](#story-1)
+    - [Story 2](#story-2)
+  - [Notes/Constraints/Caveats (Optional)](#notesconstraintscaveats-optional)
+  - [Risks and Mitigations](#risks-and-mitigations)
+- [Design Details](#design-details)
+  - [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)
+  - [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)
+- [Infrastructure Needed (Optional)](#infrastructure-needed-optional)
+<!-- /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.
+-->
+HTTP/2 cleartext (h2c) is widely deployed where TLS terminates at the edge
+(load balancers, ingress) while workloads still speak plain HTTP/2 on the pod
+network—including gRPC and other HTTP/2 stacks. The wire format is defined in
+HTTP/2 specifications from the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), including
+cleartext use with prior knowledge of HTTP/2 on the connection, mainstream HTTP
+implementations support h2c when configured. Kubernetes probes should use that
+protocol rather than a separate HTTP/1.1-only listener.
+
+This KEP makes h2c (HTTP/2 cleartext) a supported option for container health
+probes, so operators are not forced to add a second HTTP/1.1-only probe port or
+depend on a `tcpSocket` probe that only shows the port is open without a
+meaningful HTTP response. Today, `httpGet` on plain TCP is effectively HTTP/1.1;
+`https` can use HTTP/2 after TLS, but there is no first-class way to probe h2c
+on the workload port. The KEP proposes opt-in API surface and kubelet behavior
+to perform those checks over h2c.
+
+## 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
+-->
+
+Community interest and prior discussion: [kubernetes/kubernetes#125599](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/125599).
+
+HTTP/2 cleartext is defined in IETF HTTP/2 (including cleartext with prior
+knowledge of HTTP/2 on the connection) and implemented in widely used HTTP
+libraries, so the protocol is mature—not an ad hoc encoding. Together with
+widespread in-cluster use when TLS terminates outside the pod, that supports
+treating h2c as a first-class probe target.
+
+The kubelet already offers first-class `httpGet`, `https`, `tcpSocket`, `grpc`,
+and `exec`, but none performs HTTP/2 on the workload’s cleartext listening port.
+(extra HTTP/1.1-only listener, or `tcpSocket` without an HTTP-level check).
+
+Unlike gRPC probes—where part of the case was that gRPC-related stack was already
+in the kubelet first-class h2c in the HTTP probe path can add or deepen HTTP/2
+client dependency. That cost is easier to accept when it matches how services
+already listen, parallels HTTP/2 already reachable via `https` probes after
+TLS, and keeps health checks declarative instead of pushing workloads toward
+`exec` to approximate HTTP-level checks on the real port. Broader use of HTTP/2
+cleartext in other Kubernetes components over time would further support taking
+on this dependency in the kubelet.
+
+### Goals
+
+<!--
+List the specific goals of the KEP. What is it trying to achieve? How will we
+know that this has succeeded?
+-->
+Enable HTTP/2 cleartext (h2c) container probes so apps are not forced to add a
+separate HTTP/1.1-only probe port or rely on TCP probes that do not check a
+real HTTP response on the workload port.
+
+### Non-Goals
+
+<!--
+What is out of scope for this KEP? Listing non-goals helps to focus discussion
+and make progress.
+-->
+This KEP does not alter gRPC probes or ingress behavior, only how the kubelet
+performs cleartext HTTP/2 health checks when opted in.
+
+## 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.
+
+-->
+
+We add opt-in support for HTTP/2 cleartext (h2c) container probes so the
+kubelet can perform a real HTTP request over h2c to pod IP and port, without
+relying on a second HTTP/1.1-only listener or a tcpSocket probe for that case.
+
+
+1. **Option A: Extend httpGet** with an explicit way to request h2c while
+   keeping today’s behavior unchanged for specs that do not set it.
+
+   Currently `HttpGetAction` supports mutiple options:
+
+   ```yaml
+   readinessProbe:
+     httpGet:
+       path: /readyz
+       port: http
+       scheme: HTTP
+       httpHeaders:
+         - name: Custom-Header
+           value: value
+   ```
+
+   This proposal adds a `http2Cleartext` boolean:
+
+   ```yaml
+   readinessProbe:
+     httpGet:
+       path: /readyz
+       port: http
+       scheme: HTTP
+       http2Cleartext: true
+       httpHeaders:
+         - name: Custom-Header
+           value: value
+   ```
+
+   A new optional field `http2Cleartext` is added to the struct:
+
+   ```go
+   type HTTPGetAction struct {
+   	Path        string             `json:"path,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=path"`
+   	Port        intstr.IntOrString `json:"port" protobuf:"bytes,2,opt,name=port"`
+   	Host        string             `json:"host,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,3,opt,name=host"`
+   	Scheme      URIScheme          `json:"scheme,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,4,opt,name=scheme,casttype=URIScheme"`
+   	HTTPHeaders []HTTPHeader       `json:"httpHeaders,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,5,rep,name=httpHeaders"`
+
+   	// +optional
+   	// When true, the probe uses HTTP/2 without TLS (often called "h2c") to connect
+   	// to the container. When false or unset, behavior is unchanged from today (HTTP/1.1).
+   	// Validation MUST reject incompatible combinations (see below).
+   	HTTP2Cleartext *bool `json:"http2Cleartext,omitempty" protobuf:"varint,6,opt,name=http2Cleartext"`
+   }
+   ```
+
+   **Pros:**
+
+   - Extends the existing httpGet probe so users are not forced to learn a new probe type or maintain separate docs for another handler name.
+   - Lets the same httpGet probe speak HTTP/2 cleartext (h2c) to the app’s real HTTP stack instead of forcing a separate HTTP/1.1 port or falling back to a TCP probe that only checks the socket.
+   - postStart / preStop hooks already support httpGet. If we extend httpGet for h2c, hooks can use the same switch without inventing a second way to do HTTP in lifecycle.
+
+   **Cons:**
+
+   - It keeps today’s httpGet footguns (named ports, host override) unless we add h2c-specific validation, which increases API and test surface.
+   - Treating h2c as full httpGet behavior (redirects, headers, invalid HTTPS combos, etc.) user picked HTTPS by mistake and so on keeps the implementation and test matrix large even if the h2c transport change is small.
+   - A must choose between overloading scheme (TLS vs HTTP version blur, needs sharp docs ) and a http2Cleartext boolean (avoids scheme overload but is less visible in manifests).
+
+2. **Option B: New probe field** (alongside httpGet / grpc, h2cGet) dedicated
+   to h2c, with gRPC-style constraints reviewers prefer: numeric port only (no
+   named port), no host override, probe target remains pod IP and port.
+
+   This proposals adds a new probe type `h2cGet`:
+
+   ```yaml
+   readinessProbe:
+     h2cGet:
+       port: 8080
+       path: /readyz
+       httpHeaders:
+         - name: Host
+           value: my-service.local
+   ```
+
+   Adds a new struct named H2CGetAction:
+
+   ```go
+   // H2CGetAction describes an HTTP GET request over HTTP/2 cleartext (h2c) to the pod's IP address.
+   // The kubelet connects to status.podIP:port; there is no host field—use httpHeaders if a custom
+   // Host / :authority is required.
+   type H2CGetAction struct {
+   	// Port number on the container. Must be in the range 1 to 65535.
+   	// Named ports are not supported (unlike httpGet).
+   	Port int32 `json:"port" protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=port"`
+   	// Path to access on the HTTP server. Defaults to "/" if empty (define explicitly in validation).
+   	// +optional
+   	Path string `json:"path,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,2,opt,name=path"`
+   	// Custom headers to set on the request. HTTP allows repeated headers.
+   	// +optional
+   	// +listType=atomic
+   	HTTPHeaders []HTTPHeader `json:"httpHeaders,omitempty" protobuf:"bytes,3,rep,name=httpHeaders"`
+   }
+   ```
+
+   **Pros:**
+
+   - A new probe type lets you say: no named ports, no host field—the same style as gRPC probes. That removes a bunch of httpGet problems without piling on rules inside httpGet.
+   - h2c-specific validation and docs live on one struct; less combinatorial explosion with scheme / TLS / HTTP/1.1.
+   - Connect to pod IP and port number only no separate host to point the connection somewhere else. So it’s harder to misconfigure “where am I probing?” and it matches the strict, clear style of gRPC probes.
+   - In future if we need any new option we can extend it.
+
+   **Cons:**
+
+   - It duplicates most of httpGet (path, httpHeaders, etc.) under a new handler, so we maintain two parallel APIs and two sets of docs for nearly the same HTTP GET probe.
+   - LifecycleHandler doesn’t mirror ProbeHandler (no grpc today). You must state whether h2cGet is probe-only initially or also added to hooks (extra API work).
+
+### 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.
+-->
+
+#### Story 1
+
+As a platform engineer operating Kubernetes behind a TLS-terminating load
+balancer, I want to configure liveness/readiness probes that speak HTTP/2
+cleartext (h2c) to my app’s main port, so that I don’t have to run a second
+HTTP/1.1-only port (with extra ingress rules and hardening) just to make probes
+succeed.
+
+#### Story 2
+
+As an application developer whose service listens with HTTP/2 without TLS inside
+the cluster, I want the kubelet to perform a real HTTP health check
+(status/path) over h2c, so that I am not forced to use a tcpSocket probe that
+only proves the port is open and does not confirm a valid HTTP response.
+
+### 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.
+-->
+
+## 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.
+-->
+This section will be completed after API review and SIG Node settles probe shape
+(extend httpGet or new probe type) and field placement.
+
+### 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
+-->
+
+- [ ] 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.
+-->
+
+- `<package>`: `<date>` - `<test coverage>`
+
+##### 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)
+-->
+
+- [test name](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/2334b8469e1983c525c0c6382125710093a25883/test/integration/...): [integration master](https://testgrid.k8s.io/sig-release-master-blocking#integration-master?include-filter-by-regex=MyCoolFeature), [triage search](https://storage.googleapis.com/k8s-triage/index.html?test=MyCoolFeature)
+
+##### 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.
+-->
+
+- [test name](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/2334b8469e1983c525c0c6382125710093a25883/test/e2e/...): [SIG ...](https://testgrid.k8s.io/sig-...?include-filter-by-regex=MyCoolFeature), [triage search](https://storage.googleapis.com/k8s-triage/index.html?test=MyCoolFeature)
+
+### 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
+-->
+
+### 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.
+-->
+
+## 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/
+-->
+
+- [ ] Feature gate (also fill in values in `kep.yaml`)
+  - Feature gate name:
+  - Components depending on the feature gate:
+- [ ] Other
+  - Describe the mechanism:
+  - Will enabling / disabling the feature require downtime of the control
+    plane?
+  - Will enabling / disabling the feature require downtime or reprovisioning
+    of a node?
+
+###### 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.
+-->
+
+###### 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`.
+-->
+
+###### What happens if we reenable the feature if it was previously rolled back?
+
+###### 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
+-->
+
+### Rollout, Upgrade and Rollback Planning
+
+<!--
+This section must be completed when targeting beta to a release.
+-->
+
+###### 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.
+-->
+
+###### 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?
+-->
+
+###### 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.
+-->
+
+###### 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.
+-->
+
+### 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.
+-->
+
+###### 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:
+
+###### 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.
+-->
+
+###### 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:
+
+###### 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.).
+-->
+
+### 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:
+-->
+
+### 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.)
+-->
+
+###### 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)
+-->
+
+###### Will enabling / using this feature result in any new calls to the cloud provider?
+
+<!--
+Describe them, providing:
+  - Which API(s):
+  - Estimated increase:
+-->
+
+###### 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)
+-->
+
+###### 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
+-->
+
+###### 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
+-->
+
+###### 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?
+-->
+
+### 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?
+
+###### 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.
+-->
+
+###### What steps should be taken if SLOs are not being met to determine the problem?
+
+## 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
+-->
+
+## Drawbacks
+
+<!--
+Why should this KEP _not_ be implemented?
+-->
+
+## 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/5999-h2c-container-probes/kep.yaml b/keps/sig-node/5999-h2c-container-probes/kep.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..db76eac1c10d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/keps/sig-node/5999-h2c-container-probes/kep.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+title: HTTP/2 cleartext (h2c) container probes
+kep-number: 5999
+authors:
+  - "@amritansh1502"
+  - "@ngopalak-redhat"
+owning-sig: sig-node
+participating-sigs:
+  - sig-network
+status: provisional
+creation-date: 2026-04-07
+reviewers:
+  - "@SergeyKanzhelev"
+approvers:
+  - "@mrunalp"
+see-also:
+  - https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/125599
+replaces: 
+
+stage: alpha
+
+latest-milestone: "v1.37"
+milestone:
+  alpha: "v1.37"
+  beta: "v1.38"
+  stable: "v1.39"
+
+feature-gates:
+  - name: H2CContainerProbe
+    components:
+      - kube-apiserver
+      - kubelet
+
+disable-supported: true
+
+metrics:
\ No newline at end of file