The paper describes the GLOVE field campaign, the data from which will be used to validate the ICESat-2 and EarthCARE satellite Level 1 and Level 2 data products and methods. The manuscript is very well written and comprehensive in its coverage.

A particularly strong aspect of the paper is that it effectively conveys the complexity of coordinating an aircraft campaign at relatively low cost, bringing together the essential contributions from different space agencies, instrument teams, and the local campaign team.

The complementary combination of instruments benefits the payloads of both the ICESat-2 and EarthCARE missions and will, in the latter case, enable a full evaluation of synergistic retrievals (ATLID, CPR, and MSI versus CPL, CRS, and eMAS), comparing EarthCARE and aircraft-based results. The paper will serve as a comprehensive reference, with links to all datasets, supporting the many forthcoming studies on results and intercomparisons.

There are only a few minor remarks remaining:

Page 3; line 85 since October of that year (). Even though mentioned in the intro, for readability please make it since October 2018 (),

Page 5: line 141: Maybe consider adding A-LAY in the ATLID only retrievals, which provides CTH from lidar and aerosol layer descriptor. The GLOVE products should help evaluate this product very nicely.

Page 5: line 158. The validated operational EarthCARE L1 & L2a products…..

Page 7: Lines 207-212 The CPL … 2002). Double information in these sentences, please combine

Page 7 Line 218: Do you also have ICESat-2 and ATLID extinction coefficient uncertainties as reference next to the once quoted from CPL?

Page 9: Line 273: Same for the CPR Doppler and Reflectivity uncertainties in the sentence “ This performance, ….” . It would also be good to discuss the Doppler spectrum width evaluation here, as it seems the CPR is doing really well in this respect.

Table 1 ATLID resolution: 103m/500m

Table 2 CPR is oversampled at 100m resolution, maybe good to add in the vert. Res. Box

Table 4 was a bit confusing. I had to verify that it indeed gave the number count (since 1, 2 and 3 are also separately defined for Glove Objectives….and as a too fast reader it confused a bit). Suggest to change the caption into “ Targeted number of scenes for EarthCARE and ICESat-2 …..”

Table 4 and 5 are very much linked, one thing mising in Table 4 is the NPP, it would be nice to add a column for when NPP measurements can be used for validation, i.e. bonus validation, to link the two tables better.

Table 5: second row. Maybe add an EarthCARE note, even if it was just continental clear air (still good for Depol. Bias estimates).

Figure 4: Please ensure that the color scheme is accessible to individuals with color vision deficiencies, as I am not able to assess this myself but have the feeling that this may be an issue (maybe also Fig 3).

Figure 8: shown is a figure of the ATLID Co-polar Mie channel ATB, please update caption

Please see attachement.