diff --git a/draft-ietf-sidrops-rov-no-rr.xml b/draft-ietf-sidrops-rov-no-rr.xml
index 7e1566c..543bf62 100644
--- a/draft-ietf-sidrops-rov-no-rr.xml
+++ b/draft-ietf-sidrops-rov-no-rr.xml
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
 
-<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
+<!-- <!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd"> -->
 
 <?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
 <?rfc subcompact="no"?>
@@ -11,7 +11,8 @@
 <?rfc subcompact="no"?>
 
 <rfc category="std" consensus="true"
-     docName="draft-ietf-sidrops-rov-no-rr-00"
+     submissionType="IETF" 
+     docName="draft-ietf-sidrops-rov-no-rr-01"
      ipr="trust200902" updates="8481">
 
 <front>
@@ -176,18 +177,23 @@
     </t>
 
     <t>
-      When RPKI data cause one or more paths to be dropped, withdrawn,
-      or merely not chosen as best path due to RPKI-based policy (ROV,
-      ASPA, etc.), those paths MUST be saved and marked (to not be used
-      for best path evaluation etc.) so that later RPKI data can
-      reevaluate those paths.
+      When RPKI data cause one or more paths to be dropped due to ROV,
+      those paths MUST NOT be evaluated for best path, but MUST be saved
+      (either separately or marked) so they may be reevaluated with
+      respect to new RPKI data.
+    </t>
+
+    <t>
+      If new RPKI data arrive which invalidate the best path, and the
+      router did not keep all alternatives, then it MUST issue a route
+      refresh so those alternatives may be evaluated for best path.
     </t>
 
     <t>
       Policy which may drop paths due to RPKI-based checks such as ROV,
-      ASPA, BGPsec, etc. MUST be run, and the dropped paths saved per
-      the above paragraph, before non-RPKI policies are run, as the
-      latter may change path attributes.
+      ASPA, BGPsec <xref target="RFC8205"/>, etc. MUST be run, and the
+      dropped paths saved per the above paragraph, before non-RPKI
+      policies are run, as the latter may change path attributes.
     </t>
 
     <t>
@@ -207,17 +213,17 @@
 
   <section anchor="ops" title="Operational Recommendations">
 
-    <t>
-      Routers MUST either keep the full Adj-RIB-In or implement the
-      specification in <xref target="rib"/>.
-    </t>
-
     <t>
       Operators deploying ROV and/or other RPKI based policies SHOULD
       ensure that the router implementation is not causing unnecessary
       Route Refresh requests to neighbors.
     </t>
 
+    <t>
+      Routers MUST either keep the full Adj-RIB-In or implement the
+      specification in <xref target="rib"/>.
+    </t>
+
     <t>
       If the router does not implement these recommendations, the
       operator SHOULD enable the vendor's knob to keep the full
@@ -227,10 +233,10 @@
     </t>
 
     <t>
-      If the router has insufficient resources to support this, it
-      MUST not be used for Route Origin Validation.  I.e. the knob in
-      <xref target="rib"/> should only be used in very well known and
-      controlled circumstances.
+      If the router has insufficient resources to support either of the
+      two proposed options, it MUST not be used for Route Origin
+      Validation.  I.e. the knob in <xref target="rib"/> should only be
+      used in very well known and controlled circumstances.
     </t>
 
     <t>
@@ -279,9 +285,9 @@
   <section anchor="acks" title="Acknowledgements">
       
     <t>
-      The authors wish to thank Ben Maddison, John Heasley, Nick
-      Hilliard, Ties de Kock. John Scudder, Matthias Waehlisch, and Saku
-      Ytti.
+      The authors wish to thank Ben Maddison, John Heasley, John
+      Scudder, Matthias Waehlisch, Nick Hilliard, Saku Ytti, and Ties de
+      Kock.
     </t>
     
   </section>
@@ -303,6 +309,7 @@
     <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6482.xml"?>
     <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6811.xml"?>
     <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7947.xml"?>
+    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8205.xml"?>
     <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8481.xml"?>
     <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-sidrops-8210bis.xml"?>
     <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification.xml"?>