diff --git a/xep-0159.xml b/xep-0159.xml
index 30f3a71b..6661a631 100644
--- a/xep-0159.xml
+++ b/xep-0159.xml
@@ -16,23 +16,30 @@
   <dependencies>
     <spec>XMPP Core</spec>
     <spec>XMPP IM</spec>
+    <spec>XEP-0016</spec>
     <spec>XEP-0030</spec>
   </dependencies>
   <supersedes>None</supersedes>
   <supersededby>None</supersededby>
   <shortname>spim-control</shortname>
   &ianpaterson;
+  <revision>
+    <version>0.2</version>
+    <date>2005-10-30</date>
+    <initials>ip</initials>
+    <remark>Added reference to Server-Based Privacy Rules</remark>
+  </revision>
   <revision>
     <version>0.1</version>
     <date>2005-09-14</date>
     <initials>ip</initials>
-    <remark>Initial version.</remark>
+    <remark>Initial version</remark>
   </revision>
   <revision>
     <version>0.0.1</version>
     <date>2005-09-08</date>
     <initials>ip</initials>
-    <remark>First draft.</remark>
+    <remark>First draft</remark>
   </revision>
 </header>
 
@@ -44,7 +51,7 @@
       <li>The sending server may be controlled by the SPIMer.</li>
       <li>Client implementations are simplified.</li>
       <li>Client-to-server bandwidth is saved.</li>
-      <li>Consistency with the stanza blocking protocol specified by <cite>RFC 3921</cite>.</li>
+      <li>Consistency with the stanza blocking protocol specified by <cite>RFC 3921</cite> and &xep0016;.</li>
       <li>The use of interactive SPIM recognition techniques (like &xep0158;) does not leak information about the destination client's presence.</li>
       <li>If the destination client is not online when the stanza is sent, then all SPIM would need to be stored by the server until the user comes back online to decide if it is SPIM.</li>
       <li>Furthermore, if the sending client is no longer online when the stanza is received, then it would not be possible for the receiving client to use interactive SPIM recognition techniques.</li>
@@ -69,7 +76,7 @@
   </section2>
   <section2 topic='Approach' anchor='intro-approach'>
     <p>The stanza blocking protocol defined in <cite>RFC 3921</cite> allows a client to control <em>explicitly</em> which senders its server must block stanzas from. Such explicit blocking is suitable for privacy control, but not for filtering SPIM.</p>
-    <p>This document contradicts an <em>assumption</em> expressed in the standard blocking protocol in order to extend client control to SPIM blocking. More specifically, it simply defines a SPIM recognition privacy-list fall-through action that is different from the 'allow' default assumed in <cite>RFC 3921</cite>. <note>The language used in <cite>RFC 3921</cite> Section 10.2 Rule 7 appears to be deliberately vague (informative rather than normative) in order to permit other default fall-through actions. The protocol defined in this document is therefore (arguably) compatible with <cite>RFC 3921</cite>.</note></p>
+    <p>This document contradicts an <em>assumption</em> expressed in the standard blocking protocol in order to extend client control to SPIM blocking. More specifically, it simply defines a SPIM recognition privacy-list fall-through action that is different from the 'allow' default assumed in <cite>RFC 3921</cite> and <cite>Server-Based Privacy Rules</cite>. <note>The language used in <cite>RFC 3921</cite> Section 10.2 Rule 7 appears to be deliberately vague (informative rather than normative) in order to permit other default fall-through actions. The protocol defined in this document is therefore (arguably) compatible with <cite>RFC 3921</cite>.</note></p>
   </section2>
   <section2 topic='Note on SPIM Recognition' anchor='intro-recognition'>
     <p>The various SPIM recognition procedures that may be employed by the server are beyond the scope of this document. No single measure can differentiate all SPIM perfectly. It is RECOMMENDED that servers implement a combination of complementary SPIM recognition techniques (and other anti-SPIM techniques <note>Other examples of anti-SPIM policies and protocols include: requiring a user to pass a robot challenge before registering a new account, invite-only and/or out-of-band user account registration, providing a standard protocol for reporting SPIM to both the servers involved, server-to-server connection dialback, karma (client-to-server and server-to-server), legal agreements not to send SPIM during user account registration, and IP blocking.</note>).</p>
@@ -101,7 +108,7 @@
 </section1>
 
 <section1 topic='SPIM Blocking' anchor='usage'>
-  <p>This section specifies <em>server</em> functionality <em>not</em> defined in <cite>RFC 3921</cite>.</p>
+  <p>This section specifies <em>server</em> functionality <em>not</em> defined in <cite>RFC 3921</cite>. This document will not reach Draft status until <cite>Server-Based Privacy Rules</cite> has been modified to permit this functionality.</p>
   <section2 topic='Correspondents Lists' anchor='usage-correspondents'>
     <p>A server that supports this protocol MAY maintain a separate <note>If the server were to maintain a single unified list of the correspondents of all its users, then SPIMers would only need to pass a single SPIM recognition test before being allowed to send SPIM to <em>all</em> the server's users.</note> list of each user's correspondents. Each list contains all the bare JIDs the user has either sent a stanza to or received a stanza from (over the past few weeks or months).</p>
     <p>Note: When it blocks a stanza, the server MUST NOT add the 'from' attribute of the stanza to the correspondents list.</p>