----------------------------------------------------------------------
Second Report of the Referee -- AY11417/Chin
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The authors have satisfactorily addressed my concerns, except the
biggest one that refers to the magnitude of the extinction of the
light caused by the atom. The observed extinction is a factor of two
smaller than expected from theory. This factor of two is surprisingly
large, given the conceptual simplicity of the experiment. It is
annoying that the authors do not know about the origin of this
discrepancy. This ignorance certainly decreases the value of the
reported research and the impact of the manuscript.

What remains are measurements concerning the frequency, power and
temperature dependence of the extinction. All these measurements can
perfectly be explained by theory. It is therefore surprising that,
again, the authors can explain all features of the extinction except
its magnitude.

In the end, the general reader will get the impression that the kind
of experiments reported in the manuscript suffer from unidentified and
possibly obscure effects. This is surprising because the related but
much more sophisticated experiments with an atom inside a cavity do
not knowledge.

In summary, the paper is publishable, but the message it transports is
negative, without any clear instruction on how to improve.