Code change:
8.3.3. <del> Media types are registered with a canonical form in order to be interoperable among systems with varying native encoding formats. Representations selected or transferred via HTTP ought to be in canonical form, for many of the same reasons described by the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) RFC2045.  However, the performance characteristics of email deployments (i.e., store and forward messages to peers) are significantly different from those common to HTTP and the Web (server-based information services). Furthermore, MIME's constraints for the sake of compatibility with older mail transfer protocols do not apply to HTTP (see differences.between.http.and.mime). MIME's canonical form requires that media subtypes of the "text" type use CRLF as the text line break.  HTTP allows the transfer of text media with plain CR or LF alone representing a line break, when such line breaks are consistent for an entire representation.  An HTTP sender MAY generate, and a recipient MUST be able to parse, line breaks in text media that consist of CRLF, bare CR, or bare LF.  In addition, text media in HTTP is not limited to charsets that use octets 13 and 10 for CR and LF, respectively.  This flexibility regarding line breaks applies only to text within a representation that has been assigned a "text" media type; it does not apply to "multipart" types or HTTP elements outside the content (e.g., header fields). If a representation is encoded with a content-coding, the underlying data ought to be in a form defined above prior to being encoded. 8.3.4. </del> MIME provides for a number of "multipart" types -- encapsulations of one or more representations within a single message body.  All multipart types share a common syntax, as defined in RFC2046, and

Related discussion:
text: though I do wonder if HPACK/QPACK needs to be explained as well, since the order in which messages are processed does impact their compression, but not their interpretation.
I would probably say that as the semantics are still stateless, this document probably doesn't need to say anything about that. But that's a weak preference only.
The change looks good to me. That said, it might indeed be good to mention the impact of header compression.
I clarified that this was about semantics. I'm hesitant to talk about header compression, as that's likely to just confuse the matter.
I thought that was already clear. We might need to mention HPACK/QPACK anyway because they are only stateful with regard to the in-transit encoding between peers, and thus deliver stateless messages at the HTTP layer. Or something.
Clarify if the request needs to be the 1st request after a connection is opened.
Is there a reason why you ask? Are there problems when it's not the 1st request?
I'm not aware of any such problem, and for example in haproxy we do support upgrades anywhere.
Just a question I had .. which I feel the spec may want to call it out, either 1st request only or no such restriction.
Nothing in HTTP depends on where a request is placed upon a connection, because it's a stateless protocol. see last paragraph (this is likely to move to soon, which is more appropriate. Should we spell this out more clearly there?
Probably, it never hurts to remind it.
I see the case for proxies to reuse and upgrade an existing connection to the server. Mentioning this will encourage correct server implementations.