Location via proxy:   
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Mike Jones: self-issued

Musings on Digital Identity

A Significant Event Without Fanfare

By

On April 4, 2025

In OpenID, Specifications

OpenID logoA significant event in digital identity occurred without fanfare today. Presentation Exchange was removed from the OpenID for Verifiable Presentations specification. It had once-upon-a-time been the only query language used for verifiable credential presentation. In October 2024, the Digital Credential Query Language (DCQL) was added alongside it. Today, after much discussion by the working group, Presentation Exchange was removed, making DCQL the only query language supported. Importantly, this was done before OpenID4VP became a final specification.

Replacing Presentation Exchange (PE) has been a multi-year journey. I’ve been advocating for its replacement for years, including leading two sets of unconference discussions titled “What does Presentation Exchange do and what parts of it do we actually need?” – one in August 2023 at the OAuth Security Workshop and one in October 2023 at the Internet Identity Workshop. These discussions were intended to create awareness of the need to replace PE and start building consensus for its removal. Others also took this position early with me, including Tobias Looker and Oliver Terbu. Daniel Fett and Brian Campbell were receptive to the possibility early as well.

Removing a feature that people had taken a dependency on is not without pain. Numerous prototype wallets and verifiers used parts of it. But that’s the rub. There was so much there in Presentation Exchange that most implementations didn’t use most of it. As a result, interoperability, while possible, was a tricky and sometimes elusive target.

Presentation Exchange was ambitious in scope. It was a Swiss Army Knife of a specification. A goal was to enable complex queries for multiple credentials based on a general-purpose query language intended to be able to be used over credentials represented in JSON in any way. You could even include attributes of credentials other just their claims in the queries, such as algorithms and formats. You could ask for 2 of this or 3 of that and one or more of the following, as long as it is in format X, Y, or Z. It didn’t follow one of my guiding standards principles: “Keep simple things simple.” As a result, negative feedback from implementers grew over time.

Now we have a purpose-built query language designed for the task and protocol at hand. Is it as simple as it could be? No. Are all the features motivated by real-world non-hypothetical use cases? Yes.

The creation of DCQL was led by Daniel Fett. A precursor query language that helped inform DCQL was created by Oliver Terbu, Tobias Looker, and myself. Discussions at the Internet Identity Workshop informed what became DCQL, as did discussions at the IDUnion hackathon in Nürnberg in 2024 that included Kristina Yasuda, Christian Bormann, and Paul Bastian.

You can see OpenID4VP when PE was the only query language, when it had both query languages, and now with only DCQL. Compare for yourself.

Let me close by saying that I respect the people who created Presentation Exchange to a person. I count many of them as friends. They took a complex multi-faceted problem and wrapped their arms around it, producing a concrete solution. Much can be said in favor of those who pick up the pen and dare to create. Much was learned from what they produced, and it helped bootstrap an emerging industry. We wouldn’t be where we are today, were it not for their pioneering efforts!

In the end, the removal happened unceremoniously, with the merge of a pull request, like so many other changes – nearly anticlimactic. But this one marks a sea change in how credentials are presented. Thanks to all who made this happen!

I didn’t want to let the moment pass without recognizing its significance.

Third Version of FIDO2 Client to Authenticator Protocol (CTAP 2.2) Now a Standard

By

On March 18, 2025

In Cryptography, FIDO, Phishing Resistance, Privacy, Specifications, W3C

FIDO logoThe FIDO Alliance has completed the CTAP 2.2 Specification. The closely-related third version of the W3C Web Authentication (WebAuthn) specification is also nearing final status; this WebAuthn Level 3 working draft is currently going through the review steps to become a W3C Recommendation.

So what’s new in the third versions?

Changes between CTAP 2.1 and CTAP 2.2 are:

Changes between WebAuthn Level 2 and the WebAuthn Level 3 working draft are described in the document’s Revision History.

Completing these V3 specifications represents important progress in our quest to free us from the password!

Fully-Specified Algorithms Specification Addressing Area Director Feedback

By

On March 7, 2025

In CBOR, Cryptography, IETF, JSON, Specifications

IETF logoOrie Steele and I want to thank Deb Cooley for her Area Director review of the “Fully-Specified Algorithms for JOSE and COSE” specification. Addressing it simplified the exposition, while preserving the essence of what the draft accomplishes.

Specifically, the resulting draft significantly simplified the fully-specified encryption description and removed the appendix on polymorphic ECDH algorithms. We also stated that HSS-LMS is not fully specified, as suggested by John Preuß Mattsson.

The draft has now completed IETF last call, with the two resulting reviews stating that the draft is ready for publication.

The specification is available at:

COSE Algorithms for Two-Party Signing

By

On March 3, 2025

In CBOR, Cryptography, FIDO, IETF, Specifications, W3C

IETF logoEmil Lundberg and I have published the COSE Algorithms for Two-Party Signing specification. Its abstract is:

This specification defines COSE algorithm identifiers used when the signing operation is performed cooperatively between two parties. When performing two-party signing, the first party typically hashes the data to be signed and the second party signs the hashed data computed by the first party. This can be useful when communication with the party holding the signing private key occurs over a limited-bandwidth channel, such as NFC or Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), in which it is infeasible to send the complete set of data to be signed. The resulting signatures are identical in structure to those computed by a single party, and can be verified using the same verification procedure without additional steps to preprocess the signed data.

A motivating use case for this is for WebAuthn/FIDO2 Authenticators to use when signing application data, as described in the proposed WebAuthn signing extension. Parts of this spec’s content were previously in the Asynchronous Remote Key Generation (ARKG) algorithm spec, which we’ve also been updated.

I plan to talk about the spec during IETF 122 in Bangkok. I hope to see many of you there!

The specification is available at:

This work was supported by the SIROS Foundation.

The Cambrian Explosion of OAuth and OpenID Specifications

By

On February 28, 2025

In Events, IETF, OAuth, OpenID, Specifications

OAuth Security WorkshopVladimir Dzhuvinov and I led a discussion on The Cambrian Explosion of OAuth and OpenID Specifications at the 2025 OAuth Security Workshop in Reykjavík.

The abstract for the session was:

The number of OAuth and OpenID specifications continues to grow. At present there are 30 OAuth RFCs, two more in the RFC Editor queue, 13 OAuth working group drafts, and another eight individual OAuth drafts that may advance. There are nine JOSE RFCs and seven working group drafts. There are four SecEvent RFCs. On the OpenID side, there are 12 final OpenID Connect specs, three final FAPI specs, one final MODRNA spec, three final eKYC-IDA specs, and 24 Implementer’s drafts across the OpenID working groups, plus another ten working group drafts.

The number of possible combinations boggles the mind. And there’s no end in sight!

What’s a developer to do? How have people and companies gone about selecting and curating the specs to implement in an attempt to create coherent and useful open source and commercial offerings? And faced with such an array of combinations and choices, how are application developers to make sense of it all? How can interoperability be achieved in the face of continued innovation?

This session will prime the pump by discussing choices made by some existing open source and commercial offerings in the OAuth and OpenID space and lead to an open discussion of choices made by the workshop attendees and the reasoning behind them. It’s our goal that useful strategies emerge from the discussion that help people grapple with the ever-expanding sets of specifications and make informed implementation choices, while still fostering the innovation and problem-solving that these specifications represent.

The slides used to queue up the discussion session are available as PowerPoint and PDF. Also, see the list of 101 OAuth and OpenID-related specifications referenced during the discussion.

The topic seems to have touched a chord. Many people were clearly already thinking about the situation and shared their views. Some of them were:

  • Nobody actually expects everyone to implement everything.
  • Stopping things is super hard. But sometimes it’s necessary (as Brian Campbell put it, “when they’re wrong”).
  • Timing can be fickle. What may not be useful at one time can turn out to be useful later.
  • Some specs are highly related and often used together. But those relationships are not always apparent to those new to the space.
  • We need better on-ramps to help people new to the space wrap their arms around the plethora specs and what they’re useful for.
  • Well-written profiles are a way of managing the complexity. For instance, FAPI 2 limits choices, increasing both interoperability and security.
  • The amount of innovation happening is a sign of success!

Thanks to the organizers for a great tenth OAuth Security Workshop! And special thanks to the colleagues from Signicat who did a superb job with local arrangements in Reykjavík!

Proposed Candidate Recommendation for Controlled Identifiers

By

On February 4, 2025

In Cryptography, JSON, Specifications, W3C

W3C logoThe W3C Verifiable Credentials Working Group has published a Snapshot Candidate Recommendation of the Controlled Identifiers specification. This follows the five Candidate Recommendation Snapshots published by the working group in December 2024. Two of these specifications, including Securing Verifiable Credentials using JOSE and COSE, depend upon the Controlled Identifiers spec. The planned update to the W3C DID specification also plans to take a dependency upon it.

A W3C Candidate Recommendation Snapshot is intended to become a W3C Candidate Recommendation after required review and approval steps.

Thanks to my co-editor Manu Sporny and working group chair Brent Zundel for their work enabling us to reach this point.

Twenty Years of Digital Identity!

By

On February 2, 2025

In Events, IETF, JSON, OAuth, OpenID, People

Kim Cameron first told me what Digital Identity is on February 1, 2005. He said that the Internet was created without an identity layer. He encouraged me “You should come help build it with me.” I’ve been at it ever since!

What I wrote about digital identity a decade ago remains as true today:

An interesting thing about digital identity is that, by definition, it’s not a problem that any one company can solve, no matter how great their technology is. For digital identity to be “solved”, the solution has to be broadly adopted, or else people will continue having different experiences at different sites and applications. Solving digital identity requires ubiquitously adopted identity standards. Part of the fun and the challenge is making that happen.

I’m not going to even try to list all the meaningful identity and security initiatives that I’ve had the privilege to work on with many of you. But I can’t resist saying that, in my view, OpenID Connect, JSON Web Token (JWT), and OAuth 2.0 are the ones that we knocked out of the park. I tried to distill the lessons learned from many of the initiatives, both successes and failures, during my 2023 EIC keynote Touchstones Along My Identity Journey. And there’s a fairly complete list of the consequential things I’ve gotten to work on in my Standards CV.

I’ll also call attention to 2025 marking twenty years of the Internet Identity Workshop. I attended the first one, which was held in Berkeley, California in October 2005, and all but one since. What a cast of characters I met there, many of whom I continue working with to this day!

As a personal testament to the value of IIW, it’s where many of the foundational decisions about what became JWS, JWE, JWK, JWT, and OpenID Connect were made. Particularly, see my post documenting decisions made at IIW about JWS, including the header.payload.signature representation of the JWS Compact Serialization and the decision to secure the Header Parameters. And see the posts following it on JWE decisions, naming decisions, and JWK decisions. IIW continues playing the role of enabling foundational discussions for emerging identity technologies today!

It’s been a privilege working with all of you for these two decades, and I love what we’ve accomplished together! There’s plenty of consequential work under way and I’m really looking forward to what comes next.

Mike Jones Kim with Coffee

Images are courtesy of Doc Searls. Each photo links to the original.

Proposed Second Candidate Recommendation for Securing Verifiable Credentials using JOSE and COSE

By

On January 2, 2025

In CBOR, Claims, Cryptography, JSON, Specifications, W3C

W3C logoThe W3C Verifiable Credentials Working Group published the Snapshot Second Candidate Recommendation of the Securing Verifiable Credentials using JOSE and COSE specification just before the holidays. This was one of five Candidate Recommendation Snapshots published by the working group at the same time, including for the Verifiable Credentials Data Model 2.0, which I’m also an editor of. A W3C Candidate Recommendation Snapshot is intended to become a W3C Candidate Recommendation after required review and approval steps.

As I wrote about the First Candidate Recommendation, VC-JOSE-COSE secures VC Data Model payloads with JOSE, SD-JWT, or COSE signatures. And while I’m admittedly not a fan of JSON-LD, to the extent that Verifiable Credentials using the JSON-LD-based VC Data Model are in use, I’m committed to there being a solid VC-JOSE-COSE specification so there is a simple, secure, standards-based way to sign these credentials.

One significant change since the First Candidate Recommendation was splitting the Controller Document text out into its own specification called Controlled Identifier Document 1.0. Publishing a Candidate Recommendation Snapshot for it is planned for next week. Part of why it became its own specification is so that it can be referenced by the planned update to the W3C DID specification.

Thanks to my co-editor Gabe Cohen and working group chair Brent Zundel for the significant work they both put in to help us reach this point!

Integrity Properties for Federations

By

On December 6, 2024

In Federation, OpenID, People, Specifications

OpenID logoI’m writing to highly recommend the article “How to link an application protocol to an OpenID Federation 1.0 trust layer” by Vladimir Dzhuvinov. In it, he defines two kinds of integrity for Federations, and describes how to achieve them:

  • Federation Integrity, which is defined as:

    • This ensures mutual trust between two entities is established always from a common trust anchor. Any resolved metadata and policies that govern the client application and the OpenID provider in a transaction will then fall under the rules of the same federation and thus will be aligned and consistent with one another.

  • Metadata Integrity, which is defined as:

    • It ensures the trust chains for an entity to a given trust anchor will invariably result in consistent metadata and policies. The natural way to achieve this is for the federation topology under a trust anchor to form a tree. Topologies that lead to multiple paths from a leaf entity to a trust anchor are to be avoided.

The article also explores how application protocols, such as OpenID Connect or digital wallet protocols, can achieve those properties in practice (and when they do and don’t need to).

Finally, I’ll note that, as a result of Vladimir’s and others’ thinking about the topic, we just added a section on Federation Topologies to the OpenID Federation specification, which provides concrete guidance on how to achieve Metadata Integrity.

I’ll stop here so as not to repeat all the useful content in Vladimir’s article. By all means, give it read!

Three New Specs Enhancing OpenID Federation and New Contributors

By

On November 30, 2024

In Federation, OpenID, People, Specifications

OpenID logoThe OpenID Connect working group recently adopted three new specifications that build upon and provide new capabilities to OpenID Federation. But I’m not only happy about these because of the engineering benefits they bring.

I’m particularly happy because they bring new active contributors to the work, specifically Michael Fraser and Łukasz Jaromin, as well as continuing the strong work by Giuseppe De Marco, who’s become a leader in the space. They’re also supported by a few veterans: Roland Hedberg, John Bradley, and yours truly, plus now the full OpenID Connect working group.

Here’s the three new specifications, along with an abstract for each of them:

1. OpenID Federation Extended Subordinate Listing

This specification acts as an extension to OpenID Federation 1.0. It outlines methods to interact with a given Federation with a potentially large number of registered Entities, as well as mechanisms to retrieve multiple entity statements along with associated details in a single request.

2. OpenID Federation Wallet Architectures

As digital wallets become increasingly deployed for managing identity credentials, establishing an architecture for trusted communication is required to allow each participant in the ecosystem to evaluate other participants’ compliance with mutual trust frameworks and accomplish secure and trusted transactions.

This specification defines how to use OpenID Federation 1.0 to enhance the security and interoperability of wallet ecosystems, facilitating trust establishment among the parties and enabling secure metadata exchange and policy application across large scale deployments. It outlines the general architecture of a federated trust infrastructure for wallet ecosystems, identifying participant roles and describing the use of those roles.

3. OpenID Connect Relying Party Metadata Choices

This specification extends the OpenID Connect Dynamic Client Registration 1.0 specification to enable RPs to express a set of supported values for some RP metadata parameters, rather than just single values. This functionality is particularly useful when Automatic Registration, as defined in OpenID Federation 1.0, is used, since there is no registration response from the OP to tell the RP what choices were made by the OP. This gives the OP the information that it needs to make choices about how to interact with the RP in ways that work for both parties.

Thanks to the members of the OpenID Connect working group who helped refine them before adoption, and are now working on progressing them in the working group.

OpenID Presentations at October 2024 OpenID Workshop and IIW plus New Specifications

By

On October 29, 2024

In Events, OpenID, Specifications

OpenID logoI gave the following presentation on work in the OpenID Connect working group at the Monday, October 28, 2024 OpenID Workshop at Microsoft:

I also gave this invited “101” session presentation at the Internet Identity Workshop (IIW) on Tuesday, October 29, 2024:

There’s more happening in the OpenID Connect working group than at any other time since we started the OpenID Connect work. In fact, two new specifications were adopted today!

Thanks to all who helped us get there!

OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata Specification in RFC Editor Queue

By

On October 17, 2024

In IETF, OAuth, Specifications

OAuth logoI’m pleased to report that the “OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata” specification has been approved by the IESG and is now in the RFC Editor queue.

The version approved by the IESG and sent to the RFC Editor is:

It joins OAuth 2.0 Security Best Current Practice and JWT Response for OAuth Token Introspection, which are also both currently there.

Thanks to the IETF directorate reviewers and IESG members for their feedback that resulted in improvements to the specification!

OpenID Connect specifications published as ISO standards

By

On October 1, 2024

In ISO, OpenID, Specifications

OpenID logoI’m thrilled to report that the OpenID Connect specifications have now been published as ISO/IEC standards. They are:

I submitted the OpenID Connect specifications for publication by ISO as Publicly Available Specifications (PAS) for the OpenID Foundation in December 2023. Following the ISO approval vote, they are now published. This should foster even broader adoption of OpenID Connect by enabling deployments in jurisdictions around the world that have legal requirements to use specifications from standards bodies recognized by international treaties, of which ISO is one.

Before submitting the specifications, the OpenID Connect working group diligently worked through the process of applying errata corrections to the specifications, so that the ISO versions would have all known corrections incorporated.

Having successfully gone through the ISO PAS submission process once, the OpenID Foundation now plans to submit additional families of final specifications for publication by ISO. These include the FAPI 1.0 specifications, and once they’re final, the eKYC-IDA specifications and FAPI 2.0 specifications.

Thanks to all who helped us achieve this significant accomplishment!

ISO/IEC 26131:2024 Cover Page

OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata draft addressing reviews since IETF Last Call

By

On September 13, 2024

In IETF, OAuth, Specifications

OAuth logoAaron Parecki and I published a new version the “OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata” specification that addresses the review comments received since the IETF Last Call. Per the history entries, the changes were:

  • Added metadata values declaring support for DPoP and mutual-TLS client certificate-bound access tokens.
  • Added missing word caught during IANA review.
  • Addressed ART, SecDir, and OpsDir review comments by Arnt Gulbrandsen, David Mandelberg, and Bo Wu, resulting in the following changes:
  • Added step numbers to sequence diagram.
  • Defined meaning of omitting bearer_methods_supported metadata parameter.
  • Added internationalization of human-readable metadata values using the mechanism from [RFC7591].
  • Added resource_name metadata parameter, paralleling client_name in [RFC7591].
  • Added Security Considerations section on metadata caching.
  • Used and referenced Resource Identifier definition.
  • Added motivating example of an email client to intro.

The specification is available at:

Fully-Specified Algorithms Specification Addressing Feedback from IETF 120

By

On August 2, 2024

In CBOR, Cryptography, IETF, JSON, Specifications

IETF logoOrie Steele and I have updated the “Fully-Specified Algorithms for JOSE and COSE” specification to incorporate feedback from IETF 120 in Vancouver. Specifically, the registrations for fully-specified Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) algorithms in draft 03 were removed, along with the previously proposed fully-specified ECDH algorithm identifiers, while continuing to describe how to create fully-specified ECDH algorithms in the future, if needed.

The specification is available at:

Fourth and Likely Last Implementer’s Draft of OpenID Federation Specification

By

On July 25, 2024

In Claims, Federation, OAuth, OpenID, Specifications

OpenID logoThe OpenID Foundation has approved the Fourth Implementer’s Draft of the OpenID Federation Specification. This is a major step towards having the specification become final.

The previous Implementer’s Draft was in 2021. A lot has happened since then, largely motivated by feedback from actual implementations and deployments. Some highlights of progress made in the spec since then are:

  • Changed name from OpenID Connect Federation to OpenID Federation, since Federation can be used for trust establishment for any protocol (including OpenID Connect).
  • Introduced distinct Federation endpoints.
  • Clearly defined and consistently used the terms Entity Statement, Entity Configuration, and Subordinate Statement.
  • Clearly defined which claims can occur in which kinds of Entity Statements.
  • Clearly defined Entity Types and the Federation Entity entity type.
  • Enhanced description of Trust Mark issuance and usage.
  • Defined relationship between metadata and metadata policy.
  • Clearly defined interactions between policy operators.
  • Defined where constraints may occur.
  • Tightened descriptions of Automatic Registration and Explicit Registration.
  • Added Historical Keys.
  • Defined and used trust_chain JWS Header Parameter.
  • Allowed Trust Chains to start with non-Trust Anchors.
  • Clarified use of client authentication.
  • Used OAuth Protected Resource Metadata.
  • Consistent error handling.
  • Added General-Purpose JWT Claims section.
  • Comprehensive use of content types and media types.
  • IANA registration of parameters, claims, and media types.
  • Added and improved many diagrams.
  • Substantial rewrites for increased consistency and clarity.
  • Added Giuseppe De Marco and Vladimir Dzhuvinov as editors.

As a preview of coming attractions, I’ll note that profiles of OpenID Federation are being written describing how it being used in wallet ecosystems and how it is being used in open finance ecosystems. And we’re creating a list of implementations. Watch this space for future announcements.

Special thanks to all the implementers and deployers who provided feedback to get us to this point!

Fully-Specified Algorithms Specification Addressing Working Group Last Call Comments

By

On July 11, 2024

In CBOR, Cryptography, IETF, JSON, Specifications

IETF logoOrie Steele and I have updated the “Fully-Specified Algorithms for JOSE and COSE” specification to incorporate working group last call (WGLC) feedback. Thanks to all who took the time to comment on the draft. Your feedback was exceptionally actionable and helped to substantially improve the specification. Responses to each WGLC comment thread were sent on the IETF JOSE working group mailing list.

The updated draft attempts to discuss the full range of the problems created by polymorphic algorithm identifiers. Guided by working group feedback, it strikes an engineering balance between which of these problems to fix immediately in the specification and which to describe how future specifications can fix later as the need arises.

I look forward to discussing next steps for the specification at IETF 120 in Vancouver.

The specification is available at:

OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata draft addressing shepherd comments

By

On July 10, 2024

In IETF, OAuth, Specifications

OAuth logoThe “OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata” specification has been updated to address feedback from our document shepherd Rifaat Shekh-Yusef in advance of IETF 120 in Vancouver. All changes were strictly editorial.

The specification is available at:

CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims in COSE Headers is now RFC 9597

By

On June 24, 2024

In CBOR, Claims, IETF, Specifications

IETF logo The CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims in COSE Headers specification has been published as RFC 9597! This closes a gap for COSE relative to JOSE, adding the ability to use CWT claims in COSE header parameters, just as JWT claims can be used in JOSE header parameters.

The specification abstract is:

This document describes how to include CBOR Web Token (CWT) claims in the header parameters of any CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) structure. This functionality helps to facilitate applications that wish to make use of CWT claims in encrypted COSE structures and/or COSE structures featuring detached signatures, while having some of those claims be available before decryption and/or without inspecting the detached payload. Another use case is using CWT claims with payloads that are not CWT Claims Sets, including payloads that are not CBOR at all.

Special thanks to my co-author Tobias Looker, who had a use case for this functionality and wrote an RFC with me defining it (his first!). It was a pleasure working with Tobias on the draft as we navigated the ins and outs of working group feedback and IETF processes. The spec was refined by the journey we took together. And as with CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) “typ” (type) Header Parameter (now RFC 9596) that immediately preceded it, I believe the CBOR and COSE ecosystems are better for it.

COSE “typ” (type) Header Parameter is now RFC 9596

By

On June 11, 2024

In CBOR, Claims, IETF, Specifications

IETF logo The CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) “typ” (type) Header Parameter specification has been published as RFC 9596! This closes a gap for COSE relative to JOSE, adding the ability to use media types to declare the content of the complete COSE object.

The specification abstract is:

This specification adds the equivalent of the JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE) “typ” (type) header parameter to CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE). This enables the benefits of explicit typing (as defined in RFC 8725, “JSON Web Token Best Current Practices”) to be brought to COSE objects. The syntax of the COSE type header parameter value is the same as the existing COSE content type header parameter.

Special thanks to my co-author Orie Steele, who pointed out the gap and proposed that we close it. He was an active participant and insightful partner in making this RFC happen (his first!). The CBOR and COSE ecosystems are better for it.

Page 1 of 34

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén