Dear Guillaume,

Thanks for this revised version of your manuscript and the point-by-point reply to both reviews. Considering that both reviewer evaluations were positive and that you have worked on an improved version on the manuscript accounting for their remarks, I am happy to accept your paper for publication in The Cryosphere. Nevertheless, I have found few typos that should be corrected before publication.

Thanks for having choosing The Cryosphere to publish this interesting piece of work!
Regards,
Olivier Gagliardini

- about Fig. 1d: I am not sure that what you are plotting is only the "maximal principal direction of the strain rate", as it else should be vectors of same length if it was only direction? What you are plotting is the maximum strain rate as well as its direction. Moreover, a scale should then be added to Fig. 1d to give the strain rate value as a function of the vector length. Did you try to plot a continuous field of the maximum strain rate (like for the velocity in 1c) with direction indicated by a unit vector at some selected places?

- Equations (1) - (3): there is a confusion here between the deviatoric stress and Cauchy stress. In (1), \sigma is used as the deviatoric stress, whereas in (2) and (3) it represents the Cauchy stress. Two different notations should be introduced for both stresses and a clear definition of them should be given. \sigma is usually used for the Cauchy stress, \sigma^', \tau or S for the deviatoric one.

- page 7, line 25: that the horizontal velocity decreases linearly with depth

- page 8, line 1: N for a full Stokes model is better defined using the Cauchy normal stress instead of the ice overburden pressure.

- page 8, line 7: in many works, C is a space function and a C-field is inferred by inverse modelling. Here it is a constant, which should be specified.

- page 8, line 8: the measured ones and ii) the ratio

- page 8, line 14: from the moraine

- page 8, line 31: according to your values it is more 40% than 20% for these 4 calving events?

- legend Fig. 5: E is the enhancement factor, better to call it by its name than just "parameter"?

- page 13, line 18: that the crack depth "has to be"? instead of "is" (it is deduced from the modelling?)

- page 13, line 21: On the other side, the tensile stress mus

- page 13, lines 21-22: I think tensile strengths would be more appropriate than critical stress thresholds (see Schulson and Duval, 2009, which by the way give a value 0.8 +/-0.4 MPa for clean temperate ice, which then can be seen as an upper bound for real glacier ice).

- page 13, line 28: given in Benn et al. (2007b),