Refactor trace propagation logic

While working on #3998, it became clear to me that the code for propagating traces is overly complex. This issue documents concrete recommendations I have for how to improve the code's understandability and maintainability.

Most problems stem from the fact that trace information is duplicated between the scope and the transaction. Furthermore, the representations used to store the information in each are different. On the scope, we store trace information in the `PropagationContext` , while we use `Baggage` to store the information in the transaction.

The following sections list my recommendations.

### Only store trace information on the scope

Since there is always a scope, but only sometimes a transaction, we should store the trace information only on the scope. The APIs for accessing trace information from the transaction can be modified to instead get the information from the scope. Having a single source of truth for trace information on the scope makes it easier to reason about where the trace information is stored, and makes it much simpler to add support for new fields on the propagation context.

### Differentiate between communication protocols and data representations

The baggage header is a protocol for communicating trace information between SDKs across service boundaries. However, we also have a `Baggage` class to store "baggage" information on the transaction, even though we could (and should) be storing an abstract representation of the trace information (something like `PropagationContext`), instead.

Representing the trace information abstractly has the benefit that we can define APIs for more nicely accessing the various items in the propagation context, rather than needing to index a dictionary as we currently do. Having such APIs would also make it easier to understand what information the propagation context stores. Of course, we need to maintain future compatibility by allowing for "unknown" fields, but the abstract representation can handle this logic for us.

We should only use the concept of "baggage" at the service boundary when deserializing incoming trace data and serializing outgoing trace data.

_______________

POTel might make some/all of this issue irrelevant, but in case these recommendations still apply afterwards, we should refactor accordingly.

まず、scope の PropagationContext とトランザクションの Baggage 表現を特定し、次に trace-access API とコンテキストのシリアライズ境界を確認します。POTel 後も推奨事項が適用できるかを確認してください。完了の条件は、トレース情報に scope ベースの単一の信頼できる情報源があり、baggage がサービス境界での変換と未知のフィールドへの互換性のあるアクセスに限定されていることです。

索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。