I'm puzzled by your two choices.
Target Retirement Income (VTINF) is already 65% bonds and 5% short-term; it is already 30% stocks and as close to 70% bonds as makes no difference. And about 20% of its stocks are foreign, so you have your foreign exposure.
By adding Total International in option 2, you are saying that VTINF doesn't have enough foreign to suit you--yet option 1 contained no foreign at all!
This is not advice, just thoughts.
If you want the reassurance of a portfolio that is very reasonable, that embodies the "conventional wisdom," and in which you deliberately put the decision into someone else's hands, then why not 100% Target Retirement Income? Then it's done, and Vanguard rebalances for you.
Nobody can prove that anything else is all that likely to be all that much better.
Now, when you take an all-in-one fund and start adding outriggers to it to tilt it closer to your liking, that means you sort of know what your liking is. One outrigger might make sense, but by the time you are adding two or more it seems a little silly.
It seems to me that there's nothing wrong with adding outriggers to a blended fund, but it just seems less than straightforward. If you don't like the balance of a Betty Crocker mix, then why not mix from scratch instead of adding this and that to the mix? If nothing else, the rebalancing calculations are easier!
Target Retirement Income only has seven funds in it. Buy those same seven funds and adjust the percentages to your taste. Or, better yet, lump the three foreign funds and buy Total Bond, Total Stock, Inflation-Protected, International, and Prime Money Market in whatever proportions you like.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.