looking for input on viability of moving towards compatibility with native fetch api

native fetch is undici. using the direct 'undici' module allows more advanced use cases

node-fetch hasn't updated in 2 years

breaking internal changes include:

• RequestInit.agent -> RequestInit.dispatcher
• Upgrade types to node20
• node encode-decode test drops end-of-life versions 16 and 18. adds 22 and 24
• package.json types extension js->ts
  • "types": "./dist/index.d.js" -> "types": "./dist/index.d.ts"
  • spec indicates it should be index.d.ts handbook entry, but i'd like input on if this does get used
• added "module":"commonjs" for commonjs (es6 support off) generation to typescript
  • this will fundamentally change built output for existing packages, and im open to the option of just updating the encode/decode test to use ESM/ES6 instead of this change

PR checklist

• Read the contribution guidelines.
• Pull Request title clearly describes the work in the pull request and Pull Request description provides details about how to validate the work. Missing information here may result in delayed response from the community.
• Run the following to build the project and update samples:

  ./mvnw clean package || exit
  ./bin/generate-samples.sh ./bin/configs/*.yaml || exit
  ./bin/utils/export_docs_generators.sh || exit
  

  (For Windows users, please run the script in WSL)
  Commit all changed files.
  This is important, as CI jobs will verify all generator outputs of your HEAD commit as it would merge with master.
  These must match the expectations made by your contribution.
  You may regenerate an individual generator by passing the relevant config(s) as an argument to the script, for example ./bin/generate-samples.sh bin/configs/java*.
  IMPORTANT: Do NOT purge/delete any folders/files (e.g. tests) when regenerating the samples as manually written tests may be removed.
• File the PR against the correct branch: master (upcoming 7.x.0 minor release - breaking changes with fallbacks), 8.0.x (breaking changes without fallbacks)
• If your PR solves a reported issue, reference it using GitHub's linking syntax (e.g., having "fixes #123" present in the PR description)
• If your PR is targeting a particular programming language, @mention the technical committee members, so they are more likely to review the pull request.