Promising things in the rebuttal phase of a review 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?
Rebuttal phases offer authors an opportunity to swing the opinion of reviewers. To swing the opinion of a reviewer, authors must present convincing evidence. If a reviewer wants more experiments, then it is (IMO) reasonable for authors to promise them. However, that won't swing the reviewer's opinion. To swing their opinion, authors need to convince reviewers that the additional experiments can be added before the camera-ready deadline. That is, authors must show that these experiments can be conducted quickly.