Thank you for your response to the reviewers in the interactive discussion. Given the discussion I feel it is appropriate to return the revised manuscript to one of the reviewers to see if they are satisfied by your response. Hopefully you have been able to address their concerns, but i would like their view before progressing.

The referee is happy with the scientific content of the paper and is happy for it to proceed to publication as long as all of the discussed changes are made as proposed.
They do make two good points in their response though:

1. consider how you frame the response to a referee. In this case the reviewer was a bit disconcerted by the tense used in the reply that caused them some confusion. Avoiding confusing reviewers is usually a good policy. The 'tense' issue may ahve arisen from the manner in which review is now conducted (with immediate responses to the referees in open discussion).

2. the reviewer remains unhappy that the paper essentially names a new type of aurora based on a small number of observations. They cite the fact that 'diffuse' aurora is not really diffuse but we are stuck with the discriptor. I would offer 'substorm' as another notorious example. However, as the reviewer states, their job is to assess the scientific merits of the paper and in that frame, the paper is acceptable.