Re-work profile and certificate extension versions to just list version numbers as such and not as version requirements

[james-ball-qualcomm]

As I think through the conversation I had with Derek and the use cases for profiles and certificates, I've come to the conclusion that version numbers in profiles and certificates should just be a version number, not a version requirement like already exists in a manual's contents.yaml file. That's because they all list specific versions of extensions, not a minimum version. Separately when we want to compare the version numbers of an implementation's extensions to see if it is compliant with a particular profile or certificate, we can use the new replacement class for Gem::version that implements RVI versioning which isn't equal to Semantic versioning.

Yaml files for things like instructions and CSRs that use expressions like >= 1.12 or ~> 1.12 are a different story and shouldn't be changed, just profile and certificate extension version numbers.