Dear Dan,

The paper is hugely improved. Just a few minor comments.

Since the reviewer thought it was misleading, I checked with CMIP6, and for the sentence explaining the relationship between DEEPMIP, PMIP and CMIP, please write the following,
"DeepMIP is a working group in the wider Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP4), which itself is a part of the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6, Eyring et al., 2016)." Please include Eyring et al in the reference list.

For the data availability, please can you clarify the level of public access for the PMIP and DeepMIP databases? If it is not to be entirely public, how may potential users gain access?
Please also clarify in the data availability section what it is that is contained in table 2. Does this cover all the boundary conditions for all the other experiments?

With regard to this, "We strongly recommend that all model output should be provided in CMIP6-compliant netcdf format, including the standard PMIP variables, and uploaded to the anticipated PMIP database. However, if this is not possible, then netcdf files of the variables in Appendix A, including Tables 3-5, should be uploaded to the DeepMIP Modelling Database, which will be set up if and when required." ... as I read it, there are two things here that are being discussed as if they were one thing. One is the ability to produce CMIP6-compliant netcdf files, and the second is the ability to produce all the PMIP standard variables. I think these two issues should be discussed separately so that it is clearly stated under what conditions the DeepMIP database should be used.

I am a bit confused by the addition of more authors at this stage, when the revision has mostly consisted of improving the explanation and context. I think it would be a appropriate to add a paragraph outlining the author contributions.

Ah... I was very confused over your proposed multiple databases, but you have clarified things very nicely and I am happy to accept the paper.

jules