In computer science, many conferences have a rebuttal phase, where reviewers ask questions to the authors and then, basing on the answers, decide wether to accept or reject the paper. However this seems to be ambiguous on what I can say to the reviewers.
For example, in a paper I submitted to a conference, reviewers lament the absence of certain experiments, that, in my opinion I could easily add to the paper.
Is it ok to state that I can actually add those experiments, if the paper goes to the next phase, or is not this what a rebuttal phase is designed for?
This has probably been resolved already, but if it were in fact "easy" to add those experiments, then I would do so, and describe that fact to the reviewers.