Dear Dr. Goetz,

thank you for submitting your manuscript "Warm protons at comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko – Implications for the infant bow shock", for your detailed answers to the reviewer comments and for providing us with an early view of the revised manuscript.

As you have seen from the interactive discussion comments, all reviewers made positive remarks about your manuscript, agreeing that both the observations reported as well as the interpretation offered are both original and interesting. However, at least one of the three reviewers expresses some skepticism about the methodology used to obtain the study's conclusions.

Based on these reviewer comments, your answers and the early-view of your revised article, I would recommend that you revise your manuscript along the lines of the answers you provided in the interactive discussion and indicate in your formal rebuttal letter any additional minor changes you may make.

In my non-expert view, your answers appear credible and justify to proceed with the follow-up steps of peer review. However, before reaching to a final decision on the acceptance of your manuscript, I would likely need to obtain once more the expert opinion of at least one of the three reviewers, given also that the proposed changes in the revised manuscript are substantial.

I am looking forward to receiving your revised article,

Kind regards,

Elias Roussos