minor typos; substantial correction:

Although I agree that the proposal itself can be implemented in a manner consistent with the current vsetvli definition,
I disagree that the larger issue of how to expand vsetvli immediate bits is sufficiently addressed to make the decision to defer.

As a result I ask that at least the larger issue be addressed for V1.0.

As background, #460 [not 440] is a refinement of an approach to encode vtype bits in rd and rs1 [not vd and vs2] fields.
The details are on github and references to like prior proposals

I posted on #460 this response to labeling it "Resolve after V1.0".:

also throughout the email

vd should be rd
vs1 should be rs1
And vs2 is completely bogus.

Sorry I didn't catch this sooner.