Would you want version matching after 1.0?

[XAMPPRocky]

Rasn is getting pretty close in my opinion to becoming 1.0, and one question I have around that is whether the sub crates for the implementation of standards should continue to be pinned to rasn's version number? This has been the case because it has made development and releases easier and also makes it easier to know which version you should be using, but does lead to a lot of version churn as we are at a point where there are rarely changes in the sub crates, and rarely does the new version of rasn break the sub crate. So I want to ask folks for their opinions.

[Nicceboy]

Few other thoughts which could be considered before 1.0 release:

• Is chrono crate final for datetime? jiff seems to get adaption and is based on the lessons of JavaScript world. The later change is harder. Or maybe make some changes that adding it as feature would be easier in the future.
• The future of the bitvec crate - should we create better wrapper type for current implementation of BitString/BitSlice? Internal change would be then easier later on. I have had plans on making minimal similar crate with zero dependencies for ASN.1 purpose only and maybe even move that under rasn org if that is possible, but I have no schedule for that yet. We could then drop bitvec, nom and nom-bitvec dependencies and everything they pull.