The RSV (Revised Standard Version) is a good translation so long as it's a Catholic Edition. If it is referring to the Deuterocanonical books as Apocrypha, it might not be.
Here is the issue with the RSV:
It uses a different Greek manuscript for the New Testament. Scholars pretty much agree that it is an older manuscript. However it's missing texts in the New Testament. For example, the Gospel according to Mark is missing any account of the Resurrection. It's intact in the other three Gospels but Mark ends abruptly with the burial of Jesus. Also, in the Gospel of John, Chapter 8 is missing the account of the women caught in adultery.
This isn't anything deliberate by the translators to change doctrine. It's simply that they are using a different manuscript and only one manuscript.
Now if it's a Catholic Edition of the RSV, it should contain those passages so I would check your Bible for those texts. Otherwise, it's Protestant translation with the seven Deuterocanonical books put back in. Another tell tale sign will be that those books are grouped together in one section between Malachi and Matthew and treated as a separate group.
I use the RSV periodically. There are Catholic editions available from Ignatius Press or Scepter Press. I'm not familiar with the Oxford.
Finally, a word in general about translations. Translations will vary, which is why I rely on several however you will still get the gist of the text in 99% of the translations.
I'm not a fan of more recent translations, especially the Catholic ones. There has been a move towards inclusive language and they will often dilute the text's meaning, so I would avoid those.
I use the Catholic Edition of the RSV: the (RSVCE) Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (Study Bible|Amazon Search) or I'll use the New King James . . . even though it's Protestant and is missing some Old Testament books. Those books while inspired, are rarely used liturgically.
If I want to read or study them, I'll use the (RSVCE) Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition.