Review and move cspell exceptions closer to the files where they are applied via comments

[antkmsft]

@LarryOsterman: "Does it make sense to put these into the changelog directly? That way we don't have to constantly update the cspell.json file for every contributor.

Something like is done for the readme file in attestation?

<!-- cspell:words opentelemetry -->

Originally posted by @LarryOsterman in #4656 (comment)"

@antkmsft: "I like the idea of moving cspell exceptions closer to the places where they are applied. For code, that should be a safe way to go.
But in this case, I am not sure if automation that compiles release notes is going to handle the comment correctly.
Let me to complete this PR as it is, and I will open an issue to review and move exceptions to the files."

[LarryOsterman]

Originally posted by @LarryOsterman in #4656 (comment)"

@antkmsft: "I like the idea of moving cspell exceptions closer to the places where they are applied. For code, that should be a safe way to go. But in this case, I am not sure if automation that compiles release notes is going to handle the comment correctly. Let me to complete this PR as it is, and I will open an issue to review and move exceptions to the files."

That makes sense. I don't have problems putting words which are likely to be used in multiple files in the global cspell.json but for things like people's names, it make sense to scope them as tightly as reasonable (this is also why there's a cspell.json in amqp and attestation - for terms that are specific to attestation and amqp).