Well, yes, based on his previous writings, that's what he meant. While it's not completely solved, it's not as mysterious as Mitchell_Porter makes it out to be:

We know why light departs from objects with the EM wave frequency that it does. We know what EM waves are well enough to generate them in other contexts consistent with our observations of light on objects. We know that detection of EM radiation at certain frequencies creates a physical response in the retina. Information about that response is passed to the brain through the optic nerve.

Based on this previous comment, Mitchell_Porter would consider even these last steps mysterious:

We can quantify certain things about subjective color; and we can describe certain physical realities which are somehow correlated with color. Thus 450-nm wavelength light "is" a type of blue light. But I submit that it makes no sense to say that when you see a particular shade of blue, you are "seeing a length"; or that blue itself "is a length". That might do as a poetic description of the physics behind the perception, but as an ontological statement, it simply substitutes the correlated geometric property for the sensory property we are trying to explain.

Which makes his level of dissatisfaction with current physics unjustified.

Furthermore, Gary Drescher made some headway in Good and Real about the phenomenological issues. Once you can explain the correspondence between different EM frequencies and different retina states (and thus the nerve signal), you're just left with the qualia issue of "is my red the same as your red?" and "Does this brain state mean a different red for me than if it appeared in your brain?" But, Drescher says, this is no different from the gensym "problem" in programming, where the names used in referencing data are different between program instances. If that doesn't confuse you, neither should color qualia.