As reflected in the comments made by Reviewers #1 and #2 -- this is an extremely comprehensive and valuable description of an already widely used and influential model.
These reviewers recommend only minor corrections and provide an exhaustive list of typos and minor questions and queries.
All of these recommendation and questions have either been answered in full, or implemented in terms of additional clarification or corrections in the text.
The additional comments on the paper also included a number of minor suggestions and questions. These also were well answered or implemented in the revision.
There were a number of higher level recommendations made as to the structure and focus of the paper, and inclusion of '3D' framework model simulation and evaluation.
I appreciate that such recommendations would require very extensive re-writing and extension of the paper. These recommendations could also be interpreted somewhat as 'personal preferences'. Hence no more or less valid than the approach and focus taken.
I see no reason, as the authors argue, to follow these suggestions.
The paper, while relatively brief in terms of the background and justification to the parameterizations, is mathematically comprehensive. This is backed up by sufficient examples and associated comprehensive parameter such that it is readily amenable to exploration and interrogation by the interested reader.
The paper provides a benchmark in model description and transparency and it would be hard to see in practice, it could have been improved upon.
It deserves nothing less than immediate publication.