In discussion the reviewers felt that the main result of the paper---that logarithmic regret is possible for LQG under sufficient observation noise---is significant and worth pointing out, especially given \sqrt{T} lower bounds for the fully observable setting. The reviewers did feel that the framing of the results can be improved, and I encourage the authors to do this for the final version. In particular 1) the result is not necessarily surprising given the noise assumptions, and it would be good to be more transparent about this, and 2) the claim (which is even present in the rebuttal) that the exploration scheme here is "strategic" in some way compared to prior results based on injecting random noise is very questionable, and it is indeed not clear that the techniques here can be extended beyond linear control.