I am not sure L2 MTU is common attribute applicable to all packet frame based interface, in most case, we are using L3 MTU.

[rgwilton]

WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-07, Qin reviiew issue 4)

I am not sure L2 MTU is common attribute applicable to all packet frame based interface, in most case, we are using L3 MTU.

From the definition of L2 MTU
" A layer 2 MTU configuration leaf (l2-mtu) is provided to specify the maximum size of a layer 2 frame that may be transmitted or received on an interface. "
I am wondering this L2 MTU is related to Maximum Receive Unit defined in RFC4638. If the answer is YES, I would suggest to rename it, but it is still not clear whether it should be An common attribute part of ietf-interfaces-common.
If it is No, I am wondering why L2 MTU is not augmented from IP address management module which define common MTU attribute, also it is not clear to me if ietf-interfaces-common Is positioned as technology specific model? When we choose to use MTU defined in RFC8344 and when we should choose to use L2 MTU defined in draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-07.
I think L3 MTU is common and widely deployed and supported by most of implementations. But go to L2 MTU:
"
The payload MTU available to higher layer protocols is either derived from the layer 2 MTU, taking into account the size of the layer 2 header, or is further restricted by explicit layer
3 or protocol specific MTU configuration."; "
You add a lot of flexibility or multiple options, therefore I think it is hard to implement it.

[rgwilton]

This is really a duplicate issue to #18 and can be tracked there.