Why wait SIFS time before sending ACK?

It is theoretically possible to know that the CRC is correct at the exact end of the received data from the wire, but in practice, you need to accumulate all the samples in the last block in order to run the IFFT, deconvolution, FEC, and then, finally, at the very end, after finally getting the input data out of the waveform, do you know that the CRC is correct. Also, you sometimes need to turn on transmit circuitry to send the ACK, which can hamper receive performance. If each step in the processing chain were instantaneous, and if the transmit circuitry definitely didn't interfere with the receive circuitry, and if there were no lead-time necessary for building the waveform for the ACK, it'd be possible to send the ACK immediately after getting the last bit of the wave-form. But, while each element in this chain takes some deterministic time, it is not instantaneous. SIFS gives the receiver time to get the data from the PHY, verify it, and send the response.

Disclaimer: I'm more familiar with Homeplug than 802.11.

It is like that because Distributed Coordination Function (DCF) and Point Coordination Function (PCF) mode can coexist within one cell. That is a base station may use polling while at the same time the cell can use disitributed coordination using CSMA/CA.

So during SIFS, control frames or next fragment may be sent. During PIFS, PCF frames may be sent and during DIFS DCF frames may be sent. During SIFS and PIFS, PCF can work its magic.

Even though not all base stations support PCF all stations must wait since some may support it.

Update:

The way I understand this now is that during SIFS the station may send RTS,CTS or ACK and have enough time to switch back to receiving mode before the sender starts to transmit. If that's correct, it will send ACK during SIFS. Then it will change to receive mode and wait until SIFS elapses. When SIFS has elapsed the transmitter will start sending.

Also, PCF is controlled by PIFS which comes after SIFS and before DIFS and is therefor not relevant for this discussion (my mistake). That is, SIFS < PIFS < DIFS < EIFS.

Sources: This PDF (page 8) and Computer Networks by Andrew S. Tanenbaum

I can't say for sure but it sounds like an optimization strategy similar to IP. If you don't require an ACK for every data packet, it makes sense to hold off for a bit so that, if more data packets arrive, you can acknowledge them all with a single ACK.

Example: client sends 400 packets really fast to the server. Rather than the server sending back 400 ACKs, it can simply wait until the client takes a breather before sending a single ACK back. Combined with the likelihood that the client will take a breather even under heavy load (it has to as its unacknowledged-packets buffer fills up), this would be workable.

This is possible in systems where the ACK(n) means "I've received everything up to and including packet # n.

You'll get better performance and less traffic by using such a strategy. As long as the wait-before-sending-ack time on the receiver is less than the retransmit-if-no-ack-before time on the sender (taking transmission delays into account), there should be no problem.