  We show that, contrarily to the claims in [K. Bradler, (2011),
arXiv:1108.5553] (and arXiv:1201.1045), the reference [Phys. Rev. A 83, 062323
(2011)] is devoid of flaws or mistakes. We show that the criticism comes from a
misunderstanding of part of our work. We also discuss the claims made in
arXiv:1108.5553 about entanglement measures as a valid tool in relativistic
quantum information.
