  Summarizing our discussions, in the Extended Comment on the Article, that we
received, we again did not find any general solution of CPP including any
method of solution of inequalities either. This is rather a confirmation of the
specific nature of the contact criterion and the corresponding solution plus
algorithmic scheme. Surprisingly, the authors started to criticize our
alternative Curve-To-Solid Beam formulation, which is based on the CPP for
surfaces and not based neither on CPP for PTC, nor on CPP for CTC as a closer
look should have revealed. While doing so, the aforementioned authors are
apparently not fully following the logic in our paper. Thus, as an example,
while criticizing our parallel curves, they claim in several places that it is
not possible to construct any parallel curves with an arbitrary angle between
tangent lines. However, one can easily wind a wire on a cylinder at any desired
angle -- in this case the distance between the axis of a cylinder and the
mid-curve of a wire will be constant -- solution is, of course, multiple
excluding application of CTC algorithm. We are emphasizing in detail again the
fact, that a very general criterion for the existence and uniqueness of the CPP
procedure for Curve-To-Curve algorithm by no means can be derived by performing
ad-hoc and not consistent mathematical operations.
