According to upstream jetty9 server and client are not affected or more specifically, quote:
"Jetty 9 doesn't even have a UriCompliance, nor is it RFC9110. This PR in Jetty
9 makes no sense. We cannot force RFC9110 on Jetty 9 users, and the Jetty 9
users have no means to configure this UriCompliance rule it once it is
implemented."
This is more of an issue how browsers and jetty use different conventions to
parse a URI. The solution for jetty12 is to deprecate a part of a newer
specification which jetty9 does not even use.
This can't be properly addressed in Jetty 9.
I keep this issue open for further reference
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
